Case Study on Ruby Tuesday: Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Introdcution

Today many employers learn the hard way during the recruiting and hiring process that the mistakes they make can be costly. In this case, the Ruby Tuesday sex discrimination lawsuit was avoidable but the careless practices in human resource management result to disregard of the applicable laws. Any company ought to look at the pros and cons of any decision they make to ensure they do not violate the law. The paper shall provide details on the sex discrimination case involving Ruby Tuesday.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lodged a lawsuit against Ruby Tuesday Restaurant chain for improper denial of two men in the employment opportunities because of their gender. The restaurant made an internal announcement of the availability of temporary positions in the summer and went ahead to state that only female employees would be considered. The decision by Ruby Tuesday was on the basis that they would only offer company provided housing to the female employees. The company was also not comfortable in having the different gender in the same premises ("Ruby Tuesday," 2015). As a result of this discrimination the company got slapped with a $100,000 fine and as well establish measures to curb any form of discrimination especially such gender discrimination in its future endeavors.

I am not surprised by the outcome of the lawsuit, and this is because Ruby Tuesday Restaurant chain contravened Title VII 1964 Civil Rights Act. The fact that Ruby Tuesday admitted to the discrimination towards men who applied for the posted positions mean they had broken the law. The act forbids any acts of an employer to give more advantage to one group of people because of their gender through the terms and conditions such as recruitment or enumeration. The attempt to bar the male folks from the opportunity to work for the restaurant chain amounts to Sex discrimination. The internal announcement posted did not give attention to the legal considerations of the matter. It is a clear indication that Ruby Tuesday does not have a competent legal team to advise the restaurant chain on fundamental things such as the posted internal announcement barring the male gender.

Ruby Tuesday would have avoided the lawsuit and also the subsequent penalty by efficiently training its managers and even the employees on the labor laws and especially the civil rights act that does not allow any form of discrimination based on gender (Schoenbaum, 2017). Also, the chain will require having good lawyers to its legal team to ensure they check the legality of the critical decisions made by the restaurant to avert any future litigations. Ruby Tuesday also should always cater for both genders when providing employment opportunities, for instance, should have sought temporary housing for the men interested in the job even if it involves temporary duties. The restaurant chain should henceforth put consideration to both genders when they come up with a plan.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Ruby Tuesday should train its managers on the laws and the legal environment that the restaurant chain works within and to also note that any form of discrimination is illegal in employment. It is unlawful to allow discrimination of any kind in any organization, and it is therefore critical to ensure that individuals who get discriminated upon will get justice. However, it does not in any way mean that there is no discrimination or preference of certain employees over others though it is illegal. The lawsuit should serve as a significant learning experience and example to other companies and also the employees to be able to report any violation of their rights to be compensated on the same.

References

Ruby Tuesday to Pay $100,000 to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Lawsuit. (2015, April 21). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-21-15a.cfm
Schoenbaum, N. (2017). The Case for Symmetry in Antidiscrimination Law. Wis. L. Rev., 69.