Crone v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) Essay

Crone v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) - Essay Exampleof Ms Crones own door to not having appropriate skills, there is no impact on potential disparity cases and that, in spite of appearance certain boundaries, it would be good to include part of the findings within an EEO book and training.Following the decision of the US Court of Appeal, 8th Circuit, to uphold the District Courts ruling that United Parcel Services Inc were not guilty of discrimination in not promoting Ms Crone to the position of Supervisor, two questions arise. Does this open up a possible avenue for future unlawful excuses for discrimination? Is it ethical for DWI1 to include the principals of this case in their Equal Employment Opportunity manual and as part of their training?The facts of the case are these. Ms Crone applied, through with(predicate) her department manager, for a vacant position as supervisor. However, the manager did not recommend Ms Crone, stating that he was afraid she might cry in a c onfrontational situation. The person who do the final decision also stated that she was declined because of her inability to handle confrontational situations, her lack of leadership qualities. Ms Crone thence brought a case for sexual discrimination. However, she accepted that the position required confrontational skills and that previously she had exhibited some difficulties in this area. The result was that the appeal was denied and the District Court discernment confirmed.The first point to note here relates to whether there was a discrimination based on sex. Section 2000e-2 Section 703 if the Civil Rights Act (1997) states that an employers must not taste (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In the case in ques tion this is not the case. The decision was made on the basis of lack