Case Analysis Johnson V. Transportation - 1191 Words

JOHNSON v. TRANSPORTATION AGENGY Question: Is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex in the payment of wages, receiving benefits, or job opportunities? Answer: Yes, it is illegal to pay men and women differently for any reason being such as job content. Discussion: An Affirmative Active Plan (Plan) was created in 1978 in order to promote hiring women was adopted by the Santa Clara County transportation agency (Agency). Therefore, the Plan was implemented to broaden positions within traditional segregated job classifications for women. The goal of the Plan was to promote minorities and women in the labor force. Once the Agency announced an open job position as a dispatcher, two applicants were chosen in which one was a male†¦show more content†¦Regardless of the Plan the Agency has previously created, Joyce did not assume that she had a better chance of receiving the job opportunity. The Plan was not created in order to restrict male employee’s rights or future opportunities. Even though the Plan represented a model of improvement between the hiring process of minorities and women, it was proven that sex discrimination was in fact held against the respondent. â€Å"The Court held further that the Agency s considerat ion of Joyce s sex in filling the road dispatcher position was lawful. The Agency Plan had been adopted, the court said, to address a conspicuous imbalance in the Agency s work force, and neither unnecessarily trammeled the rights of other employees, nor created an absolute bar to their advancement (FindLaw). In this point in time, The District Court proved that Santa Clara transportation did not hire Joyce due to no current females working that position and they wanted the consisttancy. Even after the implementation of the Plan, it was wrong to not to recognize Joyce’s advantage to receive the job opportunity. The Agency admitted to the following, â€Å"sex is but one of the several factors that may be taken into account in evaluating qualified applicants for a position† (FindLaw). It was proven the Joyce did not expect a better chance at receiving the job opportunity, but felt it was unfair due to past experiences and qualifications.