Discussion 2.1<\/p>\n
Student\u2019s Name<\/p>\n
Institutional Affiliation<\/p>\n
Course Tittle<\/p>\n
Professor\u2019s Name<\/p>\n
Date<\/p>\n
Question 1<\/p>\n
The female executive who was denied a promotion in representing the American cosmetic company in its marketing in the Middle East buyers since she was a woman has a case. Her being a woman should have never been the reason for her denial and discrimination. The lady needs to file for a case in the court of all for discrimination against her sex or gender. The American Cosmetic company was required to produce admissible evidence which could permit them to conclude that the denial of her promotion decision had not been motivated by discriminatory animus. The discrimination based on her sex would be valid only when the essence of the business operation between the cosmetic company and the Middle East buyers would have been undermined by hiring members of her sex or gender. Consequently, the burden that moves to the perpetrator is to refute the assumption of discrimination by generating evidence that the executive lady was denied, or another person was preferred, for a genuine, nondiscriminatory reason.<\/p>\n
Question 2<\/p>\n
The gay male executive who was supposed to represent his American fashion company as a chief Marketing executive for Latin America but got denied for the reason that he was gay has a case of discrimination against LGBTQ. The gay individual should not have been discriminated against in that way. The court ruling closed part of the long and tortured struggle to end legal discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. There should be a provision that prevents discrimination depending on several characteristics, including sex which applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a momentous verdict, the United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act safeguards gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals from discrimination based on their sex.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Discussion 2.1 Student\u2019s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Tittle Professor\u2019s Name Date Question 1 The female executive who was denied a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n