Access over 20 million homework & study documents


Zippittellic V.J.C Company Case


Business Law




Showing Page:
Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW 1
Zippittellic V.J.C Company Case

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
The case “Zippitelli V.J.C. Penney” is about an employee who sued her employer through
considering ADEA which promotes equality in the workplace. An employee filed a case against
her employer regarding violation of civil acts under ADEA when applying for a promotion in his
company. The relationship between both parties is the employer and an applicant seeking a
position in a Company. However, Zippitelli is a woman among other four women who attendant
an interview and applied for position in a Company (Twomey, 2010). The same job was allocated
to the four women as personnel manager, James Johnson decided to give ranks to the other three
women and Zippitelli got the third rank. When Johnson contacted supervisor, the other women
were hired and placed in their position within the Company but Zippitelli was left unattended
instead they explained to her that, age merely meant to be considered in the Company’s job
positions. So she got poor rank because of her age and there was no success in getting a position
in the Company.
The lower court decided that the case involves age discrimination in employment Act preferably
to workplace workers. It addresses that, the James Johnson violated the Civil Rights Act under
the Amendment in which there is jurisdiction in constitution, treaties and laws. The facts about
the case include evidence in plaintiffs age consideration, because when the employee revealed
her age she did not get job hence she was discriminated (Twomey, 2010). There was also
consideration of sympathetic and pessimistic statement that young people have to be enrolled in
new positions within the workplace. Therefore, the employers attitudes and practical decisions
could not present strong evidence why he discriminated an older woman and it resulted to a

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
The statement of relevant law which the court discussed together with legal decision include
Benko’s informal conversation remarks whereby it was not actually intended as a statement of
the Company’s policy. Certainly, the legal facts indicate that the statement of the supervisor
demonstrated that the age consideration was probably a motivating factor in hiring decision
made by Johnson and J.C. Penney (Twomey, 2010). The reasoning used by the court when
deciding legal issues tackles most the rules made by Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. It shows that the older should not be neglected positions in the workplace if they
are qualified in those positions. Not merely to doubt their qualifiers because they are older and if
this happen it is a discrimination of the persons regarding their age.
In a point of view, Plaintiff blamed her age for lack of success in the Company’s position when
there was a running promotion (Twomey, 2010). Even the remark indicated irrelevant statements
to the defendant’s hiring decisions. Moreover, the aspect which could be considered by the
supervisor is the applicants’ qualifications but not age. The matter of age within the workplace
tends to lead to discrimination of applicant in matter of age.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.