The Lively Italian

1. In the case of "The lively Italian", there is illegal discrimination / treatment. Yes a law has been broken in this situation. According to the CRA 1991 it states: "An unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." In this case, an Italian woman named Francis Parodi was not given a promotion because she was "too emotional" to handle the job. This law basically says and gives Parodi the right to complain saying that she didn't get her job because she was a female or Italian even if the fact that she was too emotional was a factor. The job was given to a less experienced male over Parodi. Even though she was too emotional she should have gotten the job because the CRA 1991 protects her. So the Executive VP of Residential Lending has broken this law.

2. No, I don't believe that Frances Parodi (focal person) is being overly sensitive and should feel as though she is being victimized. It doesn't seem fair that she should be passed for a promotion when she is clearly the most qualified for the job. It even stated that Ben Koppel was going to have to learn more about underwriting and loan control. Parodi would have to teach him all of this all over again. It all seems like a waste of human resources to proceed in this fashion when Frances Parodi could have begun working efficiently as soon as she would have started. She is also being discriminated against by her co-workers that talk about how she "flies off the handle" because of her Italian blood. That is in strict violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. Frances Parodi had been an asset to the company and should not have been overlooked because of such petty complaints. She is the victim in this situation and should be ready to take action.

3. No. I believe that the Vice President of Lending was operating in a way unbeknownst to him that he was committing a discriminatory act. He was faced with the decision of hiring Ben, the supervisor in Production Support Services or Frances, the Supervisor of Underwriters. When placed side by side, the VP made a settlement according to which he felt would best suit the position of Production Administration Manager. The case for promoting Ben Koppel strongly presented itself. Ben illustrated specific attributes that outweighed Frances Parodi's. Being highly knowledgeable and lacking the necessity of training fit the VP's qualifications greatly. The fact that Frances easily "flies off the handle" could create a potential hostile work environment for her subordinates, further crippling an already sensitive atmosphere. Secondly, the VP suspects that being too emotional could hinder her managerial potential. It is for these reasons that the VP reserved his right to hire Ben over Frances. I feel that he considered both parties in their entirety in regards to their workplace practices. Upon these acute considerations

...