FINAL ESSAY
BIOGRAPHY OF DENISE CHAVEZ
By Michelle Villa
December 7, 2006
Denise Elia Chavez is a modern day literary figure. She was born August 15, 1948, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in the home on La Colonia Street that her grandmother once owned. Her father’s name is Epifanio E. Chavez and her mother’s name was Delfina Rede. She has two sisters, Faride Conway and Margo Chavez. Denise’s dad was a lawyer and her mother was a school teacher. There was a big emphasis on education in the household. Her family is Roman Catholic, and Denise is a Democrat.
Denise’s mother and father divorced when she was only ten, so she had a strong female influence growing up. Her mother spoke flawless English and Spanish and expected the same of her children. It was this and the Mexican and American women who cooked, cleaned the house and helped raise Denise and her sisters that drew her into the “art of bilingualism” (???) She did only live forty miles from the Mexican border. She lived in the prime location, being so close to the border and having community involvement, to have the opportunity to value “conversations, prayers, tales, and legends” spoken in such a musical language(???). Another influence on Denise as she grew up was all the storytelling she heard as a child. The tradition of oral storytelling was of great influence to her. This is why she later refers to herself as a “performance writer”.
As a child, hearing all of these stories, and loving it, she did not aspire to be a writer. Although, she did keep a diary to keep the stories that she heard from family members while visiting them in west Texas in the summertime. She told a reporter from the Los Angeles Times once that it was “the untold stories were always the ones that, as kids, we found the most interesting.” She comments on the story about her one of her “uncles had only half an ear. The story was that he’d been in a terrible accident, but we knew there was more to it.” Even with this kind of start, Denise did not want to become a writer. Her childhood is full of story telling and book reading. Her grandmother was an avid book reader.
While working in a local hospital in her teenage years, Denise wanted to be an actress. While attending Madonna High School, an all girls Catholic school in Mesilla, New Mexico, she enrolled into a theater/drama class. She performed in drama plays and learned it was a way to “integrate the different aspects of her artistic inclinations” and of personal expression (???). It was here, in the drama department, where she really excelled, earning a scholarship award to New Mexico State University. She majored in drama and studied with Mark Medoff, the author of the play Children of a Lesser God. She wrote her first play, The Wait, while attending this university. Her first play won the New Mexico State University Best Play award. In 1971, she received her bachelor’s degree in
27 Temmuz 2007 Cuma
Compare and Contrast essay
Fahrenheit 451 – Compare and Contrast
Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, had created a strong character named Clarisse McClellan, who greatly impacted the world in which she lived. This was a society bent on censoring every book in existence, because of the simple fact that the pages contained too much of the reality of life. In the book, Clarisse was particularized as an enchanting girl who opened the eyes of the company which she kept, namely a fireman known as Guy Montag, whom she became very close to. When the dramatization was produced in 1966, however, a few differences were present, especially in Clarisse’s relationships with Montag and other characters. Some events occurred in an unlike way between the two productions.
Quite a few things did tie together between the movie and the novel, including Clarisse’s personality. She had the same manner, her talk full of knowledge of everything around her. She had given everything and everyone a chance to understand her, but the world insisted on moving too fast to care about anything but staying two steps ahead of life. She succeeded in changing Montag from one of them to an individual, by asking him for the reason why society stubbornly stayed so ignorant and burned books, their only source of reality. He had no answer, other than, “It’s always been this way.” Clarisse kept him aware that despite what he said, he is very unhappy with the way everyone’s lives were going, and that depth of thought was mandatory in an otherwise shallow world. For her way of thinking, Clarisse was shunned by every person besides Montag, others with her ideas, and her uncle, who influenced her “anti-social” ways. Montag could not help but to think about her philosophies and he added on to all of them day by day.
But past this, the differences arise. In the book, Clarisse is only seventeen years old, but in the movie she approached Montag as a twenty year old woman, and their relationship changed somewhat. They met not on a dark street, but n a monorail they both rode after work. Her status had been changed from a high school student to a teacher.
She was familiar with other “rebels” including an old woman who commits suicide rather than parting with her books. Clarisse was not killed by a speeding car full of kids, but lived and was taken in by the book people. In the written version, Clarisse had no acquaintance with any of these people. This probably showed that she really was as important as the novel said she was, because to give that sort of emphasis on a character is harder in a movie than in a book.
There was a character in the novel named Faber, an old man who helped Montag see the purpose of books. In the movie, he was replaced by Clarisse for two reasons: she talked to Montag about all the things Faber would have said (because she needed to have a purpose for staying alive), and because all the main reasons that books were important Montag figured out himself throughout the duration of the movie.
Many similarities and differences can be pointed out between the film and the novel. Not all of them feature Clarisse, but they are just as important. They bring into light the ways of portraying the world of Fahrenheit 451.
Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, had created a strong character named Clarisse McClellan, who greatly impacted the world in which she lived. This was a society bent on censoring every book in existence, because of the simple fact that the pages contained too much of the reality of life. In the book, Clarisse was particularized as an enchanting girl who opened the eyes of the company which she kept, namely a fireman known as Guy Montag, whom she became very close to. When the dramatization was produced in 1966, however, a few differences were present, especially in Clarisse’s relationships with Montag and other characters. Some events occurred in an unlike way between the two productions.
Quite a few things did tie together between the movie and the novel, including Clarisse’s personality. She had the same manner, her talk full of knowledge of everything around her. She had given everything and everyone a chance to understand her, but the world insisted on moving too fast to care about anything but staying two steps ahead of life. She succeeded in changing Montag from one of them to an individual, by asking him for the reason why society stubbornly stayed so ignorant and burned books, their only source of reality. He had no answer, other than, “It’s always been this way.” Clarisse kept him aware that despite what he said, he is very unhappy with the way everyone’s lives were going, and that depth of thought was mandatory in an otherwise shallow world. For her way of thinking, Clarisse was shunned by every person besides Montag, others with her ideas, and her uncle, who influenced her “anti-social” ways. Montag could not help but to think about her philosophies and he added on to all of them day by day.
But past this, the differences arise. In the book, Clarisse is only seventeen years old, but in the movie she approached Montag as a twenty year old woman, and their relationship changed somewhat. They met not on a dark street, but n a monorail they both rode after work. Her status had been changed from a high school student to a teacher.
She was familiar with other “rebels” including an old woman who commits suicide rather than parting with her books. Clarisse was not killed by a speeding car full of kids, but lived and was taken in by the book people. In the written version, Clarisse had no acquaintance with any of these people. This probably showed that she really was as important as the novel said she was, because to give that sort of emphasis on a character is harder in a movie than in a book.
There was a character in the novel named Faber, an old man who helped Montag see the purpose of books. In the movie, he was replaced by Clarisse for two reasons: she talked to Montag about all the things Faber would have said (because she needed to have a purpose for staying alive), and because all the main reasons that books were important Montag figured out himself throughout the duration of the movie.
Many similarities and differences can be pointed out between the film and the novel. Not all of them feature Clarisse, but they are just as important. They bring into light the ways of portraying the world of Fahrenheit 451.
Essay question
Chapter One: Foundations
Essay question
“Common law and equity are working in different ways towards the same ends, and it is therefore as wrong to assert the independence of one from the other as it is to assert that there is no difference between them”.
Critically discuss the above statement.
Guidance
Introduction
What immediately strikes one about the quote is that there are two distinct parts to it. The first asserts that, despite a shared aim, the common law and equity work in different ways, which is to say that they are methodologically distinct. With particular reference to equity, we will question whether or not it is strictly accurate to distinguish its aims from the means it uses to achieve those aims. It may be that this inquiry will lead us to conclude that the common law and equity are not trying to achieve the same things at all. The second part of the question asserts that the shared aims of common law and equity necessitate mutual dependence. Let us consider these two key assertions in turn.
Common law and equity are working in different ways towards the same ends
The first thing to ask is whether common law and equity are, indeed, ‘working in different ways’. In other words, are they methodologically distinct. The first thing to state is that the Judicature Acts 1873–5 did not entirely do away with the historical distinction between law and equity. Professor J.H. Baker (An Introduction to English Legal History) observed that:
If, for reasons of history, equity had become the law peculiar to the Court of Chancery, nevertheless in broad theory equity was an approach to justice which give more weight than did the law to particular circumstances and hard cases.
Professor Baker is suggesting that equity is a distinctive type of legal methodology, a particular form of legal reasoning and practice. I would agree. Equity is typified by an attention to justice in individual ‘hard’ cases or in personam justice, based on the desire to ensure that legal powers and rights available to society at large are exercised in good conscience in individual cases. This does not mean that equity is a form of morality, but it does mean that whereas the common law seeks to establish a form of law common to all citizens, by way of rights that are enforceable against all-comers, equity seeks to restrain the unconscionable exercise of those rights in the particular case.
A classic illustration is equity’s concern for substance over form. Thus, whereas the common law requires that all transfers of legal title to land must be made by a formal deed (Law of Property Act 1925, s. 52), equity does not always require formal documentation before it will acknowledge that an equitable interest has been created in land. Thus where a legal freeholder invites a stranger to enter and build upon his land, and the stranger does so at his own expense in the reasonable expectation encouraged by the freeholder that he will thereby acquire a right in the land itself. Equity (by virtue of the doctrine or proprietory estoppel) stops the freeholder from asserting his one hundred per cent legal ownership against the stranger. In short, the legal owner will not be permitted to exercise his legal right to evict the stranger as he might a common trespasser. This example illustrates equity’s concern to ensure the conscionable use of legal rights, and to achieve in personam justice, even though the political interest in ensuring certainty through legal formalities might thereby be sacrificed to some extent.
This example also illustrates another distinct feature of equitable methodology, namely recourse to maxims (‘equity looks to substance not form’) to dispose of hard cases. The common law does not appear to use maxims in quite the same way.
The second issue is whether the common law and equity are working towards the same ends. As the discussion so far suggests, the short-term, immediate aims of equity are quite different to the short-term immediate aims of the common law. We have seen that equity acts in competition with, or as a check upon, the operation of the common law. However, leaving aside this first-level distinction, it is clear that the common law and equity share the same ultimate aim. Namely, to establish a legal system that balances the need for certainty in the law, and hence a just scheme for regulating relations between members of society at large, with the need for justice in individual cases.
It is wrong to assert the independence of the common law from equity.
According to the way in which we have just outlined the methodology and function of equity, it is clear that equity has no existence or utility apart from the law. As the equitable maxim puts it: equity follows the law. It is therefore by its very nature dependent upon the law. Although not every jurist would agree with this ‘dependent’ conception of equity. In fact, Sir Anthony Mason has commented extra-judicially that: ‘by providing for the administration of the two systems of law by the one system of courts and by prescribing the paramountcy of equity, the Judicature Acts freed equity from its position on the coat-tails of the common law and positioned it for advances beyond its old frontiers’ (‘The Place of Equity and Equitable Remedies in the Contemporary Common Law World’ (1994) 110 LQR 238, 239).
Conclusion
Whilst the common law and equity do work in different ways, and have quite different immediate aims, they certainly agree upon their ultimate aim of setting in place a system of law that achieves the correct balance between certainty and justice. To this end it is obvious that the common law and equity are dependent upon one another. However, this is because the English system has tended largely to equate the common law with certainty, and to equate equity with justice in individual cases (in personam justice). To the extent that this equation is a proper one, the quotation is accurate. But if it is accurate it is also something of a truism. Namely, that in order to achieve a legal system that comprises both law and equity, equity and law must be dependent upon one another.
Essay question
“Common law and equity are working in different ways towards the same ends, and it is therefore as wrong to assert the independence of one from the other as it is to assert that there is no difference between them”.
Critically discuss the above statement.
Guidance
Introduction
What immediately strikes one about the quote is that there are two distinct parts to it. The first asserts that, despite a shared aim, the common law and equity work in different ways, which is to say that they are methodologically distinct. With particular reference to equity, we will question whether or not it is strictly accurate to distinguish its aims from the means it uses to achieve those aims. It may be that this inquiry will lead us to conclude that the common law and equity are not trying to achieve the same things at all. The second part of the question asserts that the shared aims of common law and equity necessitate mutual dependence. Let us consider these two key assertions in turn.
Common law and equity are working in different ways towards the same ends
The first thing to ask is whether common law and equity are, indeed, ‘working in different ways’. In other words, are they methodologically distinct. The first thing to state is that the Judicature Acts 1873–5 did not entirely do away with the historical distinction between law and equity. Professor J.H. Baker (An Introduction to English Legal History) observed that:
If, for reasons of history, equity had become the law peculiar to the Court of Chancery, nevertheless in broad theory equity was an approach to justice which give more weight than did the law to particular circumstances and hard cases.
Professor Baker is suggesting that equity is a distinctive type of legal methodology, a particular form of legal reasoning and practice. I would agree. Equity is typified by an attention to justice in individual ‘hard’ cases or in personam justice, based on the desire to ensure that legal powers and rights available to society at large are exercised in good conscience in individual cases. This does not mean that equity is a form of morality, but it does mean that whereas the common law seeks to establish a form of law common to all citizens, by way of rights that are enforceable against all-comers, equity seeks to restrain the unconscionable exercise of those rights in the particular case.
A classic illustration is equity’s concern for substance over form. Thus, whereas the common law requires that all transfers of legal title to land must be made by a formal deed (Law of Property Act 1925, s. 52), equity does not always require formal documentation before it will acknowledge that an equitable interest has been created in land. Thus where a legal freeholder invites a stranger to enter and build upon his land, and the stranger does so at his own expense in the reasonable expectation encouraged by the freeholder that he will thereby acquire a right in the land itself. Equity (by virtue of the doctrine or proprietory estoppel) stops the freeholder from asserting his one hundred per cent legal ownership against the stranger. In short, the legal owner will not be permitted to exercise his legal right to evict the stranger as he might a common trespasser. This example illustrates equity’s concern to ensure the conscionable use of legal rights, and to achieve in personam justice, even though the political interest in ensuring certainty through legal formalities might thereby be sacrificed to some extent.
This example also illustrates another distinct feature of equitable methodology, namely recourse to maxims (‘equity looks to substance not form’) to dispose of hard cases. The common law does not appear to use maxims in quite the same way.
The second issue is whether the common law and equity are working towards the same ends. As the discussion so far suggests, the short-term, immediate aims of equity are quite different to the short-term immediate aims of the common law. We have seen that equity acts in competition with, or as a check upon, the operation of the common law. However, leaving aside this first-level distinction, it is clear that the common law and equity share the same ultimate aim. Namely, to establish a legal system that balances the need for certainty in the law, and hence a just scheme for regulating relations between members of society at large, with the need for justice in individual cases.
It is wrong to assert the independence of the common law from equity.
According to the way in which we have just outlined the methodology and function of equity, it is clear that equity has no existence or utility apart from the law. As the equitable maxim puts it: equity follows the law. It is therefore by its very nature dependent upon the law. Although not every jurist would agree with this ‘dependent’ conception of equity. In fact, Sir Anthony Mason has commented extra-judicially that: ‘by providing for the administration of the two systems of law by the one system of courts and by prescribing the paramountcy of equity, the Judicature Acts freed equity from its position on the coat-tails of the common law and positioned it for advances beyond its old frontiers’ (‘The Place of Equity and Equitable Remedies in the Contemporary Common Law World’ (1994) 110 LQR 238, 239).
Conclusion
Whilst the common law and equity do work in different ways, and have quite different immediate aims, they certainly agree upon their ultimate aim of setting in place a system of law that achieves the correct balance between certainty and justice. To this end it is obvious that the common law and equity are dependent upon one another. However, this is because the English system has tended largely to equate the common law with certainty, and to equate equity with justice in individual cases (in personam justice). To the extent that this equation is a proper one, the quotation is accurate. But if it is accurate it is also something of a truism. Namely, that in order to achieve a legal system that comprises both law and equity, equity and law must be dependent upon one another.
Essay 21
Essay 2
Behind every person’s response is a reason based around that person’s perspective. The decision made by Arnold Schwarzenegger to deny clemency for Stan Tookie Williams created different perspectives both positive and negative, nationally and globally which has had mixed reactions from different levels of society. This is because different groups of people had different perceptions on the justice system that Arnold Schwarzenegger was trying to enforce. Protesting occurred globally as well as celebrities who used their status as role models and exercised the human right of freedom of speech to inform and to speak to the public to voice their beliefs, values and opinions on the current social issue. Supporters however seemed to mainly use the media to voice their gratitude toward Schwarzenegger’s values position. There is evidence that Tookie had built a violent reputation in lower L.A back in his troubled past, however in his later life he had shown signs of redemption which Schwarzenegger believed couldn’t redeem what he had done. This lead to the execution of the former gang leader on 13/12/03.
Essay 1
Conclusion
In conclusion, the perspectives that had formed around the current social issue resulted in many responses; both social and political. Many saw fit to abuse the authority they had to voice protest or praise towards Schwarzenegger’s values position on many different occasions. This was because they had status in the communities and countries they lived in, and most in the spotlight of the media aspired to social change regarding capital punishment starting with clemency being granted for Tookie.
Behind every person’s response is a reason based around that person’s perspective. The decision made by Arnold Schwarzenegger to deny clemency for Stan Tookie Williams created different perspectives both positive and negative, nationally and globally which has had mixed reactions from different levels of society. This is because different groups of people had different perceptions on the justice system that Arnold Schwarzenegger was trying to enforce. Protesting occurred globally as well as celebrities who used their status as role models and exercised the human right of freedom of speech to inform and to speak to the public to voice their beliefs, values and opinions on the current social issue. Supporters however seemed to mainly use the media to voice their gratitude toward Schwarzenegger’s values position. There is evidence that Tookie had built a violent reputation in lower L.A back in his troubled past, however in his later life he had shown signs of redemption which Schwarzenegger believed couldn’t redeem what he had done. This lead to the execution of the former gang leader on 13/12/03.
Essay 1
Conclusion
In conclusion, the perspectives that had formed around the current social issue resulted in many responses; both social and political. Many saw fit to abuse the authority they had to voice protest or praise towards Schwarzenegger’s values position on many different occasions. This was because they had status in the communities and countries they lived in, and most in the spotlight of the media aspired to social change regarding capital punishment starting with clemency being granted for Tookie.
‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’ is this true about Frankenstein’s creation? essay
Pre –1914 prose
‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’ is this true about Frankenstein’s creation?
‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’ is a proverb. A proverb is a saying and often has two meanings. They also teach us things. This proverb means don’t judge people by the way they look. This proverb has some relevance because everyone judged him by the way he looked because he was so ugly and people thought he was evil.
When the creation first comes to life it has a macabre appearance because he was created by Victor Frankenstein and he is made out of dead body parts from different people victor took the best parts from different people and sewed it all together.
Although the creature has an ugly exterior/ it does many good things in the story for instance, while in the forest it feels happy because it’s on its own and nobody is there to hurt it. It fells free and good about itself E.g.’ I was delighted when I first discovered that a pleasant sound, which often slaughted my ears, proceed form the throats of the little winged animals’
Many off the good deeds for the cottagers include collecting food and fore wood, which really helps as they have no food or firewood and it’s also winter and freezing cold. The creation does this because he wants to feel loved and part of a family E.g. ‘ the young women… appeared greatly astonished on seeing a great pile of wood… I observed with pleasure’ because he was abandoned by Frankenstein at the beginning. But after they have attacked it it leaves, although it could easily have harmed them, which shows it cares and is good at heart and doesn’t want to harm anyone.
When a young girl falls in the river the creation saves her it is then repaid by her father shooting him in the shoulder, this is because her father thinks it is attacking her because of the way he looks. This proves that he wants to do good but no one trusts him. The creation also teaches itself to read and write and speak he does this by watching a family from a hut and learning how to speak at the novels end, despite events the creature reacts to Frankenstein’s death by mourning over his dead body and wanting him back E.g. ‘when I felt the cheering warmth of summer and heard the rustling of the leaves and warbling of the birds, and these were all to me, I should have wept to die, now it is my only consolation’.
All of these things prove that the creation is capable of kindness and being nice despite the way it looks and although the villagers it first meets attack it because of the way it appears, they are wrong to do this because you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover and you should never dislike a person just because of the way they look.
In this respect the proverb is true for the creature as it is ugly but everyone dislikes it because of its appearance and everyone is scared of it. ‘ Despite these good deeds, the creation also inflicts much pain upon others in the story’ during the book, it murders several characters it kills Frankenstein’s brother William because he’s just trying to shut him up he doesn’t mean to kill him but once it has killed William it feels a hellish joy e.g. ‘ I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph’ which proves that he didn’t mean to hurt him but once he has he feels good about it because he realises he’s related to victor he feels a hellish joy.
The creature also murders Henry and most brutally, Elizabeth. This is a cruel killing as it was her wedding night and he only did it to hurt victor she had nothing to do with it. Once Frankenstein found Elizabeth dead, he sees the creation gloating at the window. This indicates that it carried out the murder to get back at him because he didn’t create another monster so the creation could have a friend.
The proverb ‘ don’t judge a book by its cover’ is true to some extent because Frankenstein’s creation was ugly and looked evil but was a good kind person at the heart and didn’t mean to hurt anyone. However it may also be argues that he was evil and a killer because he killed Elizabeth just to get back at victor.
Laura Berrett 10.s
‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’ is this true about Frankenstein’s creation?
‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’ is a proverb. A proverb is a saying and often has two meanings. They also teach us things. This proverb means don’t judge people by the way they look. This proverb has some relevance because everyone judged him by the way he looked because he was so ugly and people thought he was evil.
When the creation first comes to life it has a macabre appearance because he was created by Victor Frankenstein and he is made out of dead body parts from different people victor took the best parts from different people and sewed it all together.
Although the creature has an ugly exterior/ it does many good things in the story for instance, while in the forest it feels happy because it’s on its own and nobody is there to hurt it. It fells free and good about itself E.g.’ I was delighted when I first discovered that a pleasant sound, which often slaughted my ears, proceed form the throats of the little winged animals’
Many off the good deeds for the cottagers include collecting food and fore wood, which really helps as they have no food or firewood and it’s also winter and freezing cold. The creation does this because he wants to feel loved and part of a family E.g. ‘ the young women… appeared greatly astonished on seeing a great pile of wood… I observed with pleasure’ because he was abandoned by Frankenstein at the beginning. But after they have attacked it it leaves, although it could easily have harmed them, which shows it cares and is good at heart and doesn’t want to harm anyone.
When a young girl falls in the river the creation saves her it is then repaid by her father shooting him in the shoulder, this is because her father thinks it is attacking her because of the way he looks. This proves that he wants to do good but no one trusts him. The creation also teaches itself to read and write and speak he does this by watching a family from a hut and learning how to speak at the novels end, despite events the creature reacts to Frankenstein’s death by mourning over his dead body and wanting him back E.g. ‘when I felt the cheering warmth of summer and heard the rustling of the leaves and warbling of the birds, and these were all to me, I should have wept to die, now it is my only consolation’.
All of these things prove that the creation is capable of kindness and being nice despite the way it looks and although the villagers it first meets attack it because of the way it appears, they are wrong to do this because you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover and you should never dislike a person just because of the way they look.
In this respect the proverb is true for the creature as it is ugly but everyone dislikes it because of its appearance and everyone is scared of it. ‘ Despite these good deeds, the creation also inflicts much pain upon others in the story’ during the book, it murders several characters it kills Frankenstein’s brother William because he’s just trying to shut him up he doesn’t mean to kill him but once it has killed William it feels a hellish joy e.g. ‘ I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph’ which proves that he didn’t mean to hurt him but once he has he feels good about it because he realises he’s related to victor he feels a hellish joy.
The creature also murders Henry and most brutally, Elizabeth. This is a cruel killing as it was her wedding night and he only did it to hurt victor she had nothing to do with it. Once Frankenstein found Elizabeth dead, he sees the creation gloating at the window. This indicates that it carried out the murder to get back at him because he didn’t create another monster so the creation could have a friend.
The proverb ‘ don’t judge a book by its cover’ is true to some extent because Frankenstein’s creation was ugly and looked evil but was a good kind person at the heart and didn’t mean to hurt anyone. However it may also be argues that he was evil and a killer because he killed Elizabeth just to get back at victor.
Laura Berrett 10.s
PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AT WORK
PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AT WORK
In 1978, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include a more specific prohibition on pregnancy-related discrimination. Ever since then, it has been unlawful for employers having 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
The most clear-cut forms of pregnancy discrimination occur when an employer refuses to hire an applicant because she is pregnant or fires an existing employee because she becomes pregnant. But there are more subtle, but no less prohibited, forms of pregnancy discrimination, such as in the areas of accrual and crediting of seniority, compensation, leave from work, health insurance, and other fringe benefits. Although pregnancy is in many ways a unique condition, a rule of thumb for employers is that they may not treat pregnant employees adversely as compared with employees having comparable temporary medical conditions.
If, because of her pregnancy, an employee is temporarily unable to work, she must be treated like any other temporarily disabled employee. This standard does not render an employer powerless to require anything of the employee, but the approach must be even-handed. For example, if the employer normally requires a doctor's statement verifying an inability to work, the same can be required of a pregnant employee.
If the employer has a policy allowing temporarily disabled workers to ease back into work with modified tasks or different assignments, similar flexibility must be shown to the pregnant worker. If an employer generally holds open a job for a certain period of time for someone out on sick leave or disability leave, a pregnant employee is entitled to such treatment, no more or less.
Ironclad rules are more likely to expose companies to liability under the federal discrimination law. A rule requiring a pregnant employee on leave to stay on leave until the baby is born, regardless of whether she may have recovered from the condition related to the pregnancy, invites a lawsuit. Employers also cannot have a policy that prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined time period after giving birth.
Job applicants with African-American-sounding names are far less likely to get a callback than are similarly qualified "white" candidates, according to researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT, who submitted 5,000 bogus resumes in response to job ads. Half the resumes bore stereotypical African-American names such as Latonya and Tyrone; half sported traditionally Anglo names like Kristin and Brad.
Candidates with Caucasian-sounding names were contacted more frequently than those with a presumed ethnic identity and identical resume. That is, 10 percent of those with typically white names were called back, compared to just 6.7 percent with black-sounding names. Some names may be especially unpalatable for employers: Tamika was called back 5 percent of the time; Aisha, a scant 2 percent.
Marianne Bertrand, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Chicago, also found that highly qualified "black" candidates had no advantage over their less qualified black peers, but "white" candidates' odds of an interview skyrocketed with increased skills.
Cancer sufferers still face discrimination at work despite amendments to Disability Discrimination Act
05 October 2006 10:16
Employers are still discriminating against women with cancer despite changes in the law aimed at protecting workers from unfair treatment.
Figures from the Disability Rights Commission's (DRC) helpline show that this year the DRC has taken on average two calls a week from women with breast cancer complaining of unfair treatment at work.
In total, more than 70 women with breast cancer and 103 people with other forms of cancer have called its helpline complaining of problems with their employers.
And in December 2005 means people with these conditions receive legal protection from the point of diagnosis.
Among callers with other cancers, most (82%) cited employers failing to make reasonable adjustments that would keep them in work; nearly one in five callers reported having been dismissed; a further 13% of callers complained of facing threats of dismissal; and nearly 6% of callers were facing disciplinary action.
For workers with cancer, reasonable adjustments could include flexible working, alterations to working hours and time off for medical treatment.
Agnes Fletcher, assistant director of communications at the DRC, said: "Despite changes in the law to protect people with cancer and long-term health conditions from unfair treatment at work, many employers still haven't got the message.
"Direct discrimination and failures to make adjustments is turning the world of work into a very hostile environment for workers with these disabilities."
As I promised, when I published "The American Way" I am ready to broach the subject of workplace discrimination in the 21st century. Although, again, if you will find yourself offended by this topic, please read no further.
The basis of this article is a topic close to my heart. As you already know, if you have read the above-mentioned, I am married to a black man and live in the heart of the Deep South.
What you don't know is since I lost my job, in January, 1999, I have been a self-employed jane of all trades in order to avoid putting myself in the same situation again, and having to watch others being exploited and passed over lateral transfers or promotions because of their gender or race. The things I saw in the corporate world of this particular organization sent my head reeling.
For a little background:
I started out with the company in the file room as a temp, and was granted the opportunity to post for an internal position because of my work performance. I tested for and was hired for the position.
My boss was ecstatic with my work. He praised me all over the building, from Human Resources to the company president. I was the best secretary he'd ever had.
Four months into my probationary period, a job came open for which I was highly qualified and that would pay more that $2000 a year more. So I posted for it. There was no harm in trying.
Then I got sick. I had to be off work for over a week, doctor's orders. While I was at home, recovering, I decided to get some pictures together to put on my desk as work.
The Monday I went back to work, I made sure I was there a few minutes early so I could put up my pictures and make my desk my own. My boss came back from a business trip the next afternoon. When I came back from lunch, he wrote me up for being off work, after he had been so nice about my getting well.
A short time later, I was told that I would have to have him sign a paper and referral in order to be considered for the new position. I gave him the paper. What I got back was apalling. I couldn't believe the terrible things he had to say about my work. I knew what had happened, and I knew why, but because he did it in such a sly way, there was no way for me to fight it.
Although I got the new position, I was watched constantly and was made to perform at a rate much higher that the others in the department. I received no training and was expected to complete tasks based on former knowledge. It was a hopeless situation. It wasn't long before I was asked to resign. There had been too many complaints. There had been too much work returned. The me interject here that my work was exemplary and my error ratio was less than 3%. My co-workers' error ratios, from what I could tell, were closer to 10%. So, I asked what was an acceptable ratio. Upon being told that it is up to the discretion of the supervisor, I knew I was gone. There is no way to fight termination when the state you live in has "at will" termination for all employers, and the company has no ground rules, with one exception. That exception being dress code for the women. We weren't allowed to go to work without pantyhose or stockings under our skirts.
So I resigned.
In the meantime, I had learned from many people who'd worked there for years, that women and non-whites were never promoted beyond supervisory level. There was only one black male working in a position above that of custodian in the entire state, and his was a field position. No female in the company ever managed to get above a grade 9 pay scale because the management positions were strictly for the men.
Black women were passed over for promotion on a regular basis, and the jobs were filled from outside, with white employees who had fewer skills and qualifications. No explanation, or even an apology.
New discrimination, or just the old stuff being handled in a way that won't get the company in trouble? You tell me. I would love to hear your comments.
Next time...segregation and racial/sexual discrimination within a county school district that is so blatantly obvious I don't know how they get away with it.
In 1978, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include a more specific prohibition on pregnancy-related discrimination. Ever since then, it has been unlawful for employers having 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
The most clear-cut forms of pregnancy discrimination occur when an employer refuses to hire an applicant because she is pregnant or fires an existing employee because she becomes pregnant. But there are more subtle, but no less prohibited, forms of pregnancy discrimination, such as in the areas of accrual and crediting of seniority, compensation, leave from work, health insurance, and other fringe benefits. Although pregnancy is in many ways a unique condition, a rule of thumb for employers is that they may not treat pregnant employees adversely as compared with employees having comparable temporary medical conditions.
If, because of her pregnancy, an employee is temporarily unable to work, she must be treated like any other temporarily disabled employee. This standard does not render an employer powerless to require anything of the employee, but the approach must be even-handed. For example, if the employer normally requires a doctor's statement verifying an inability to work, the same can be required of a pregnant employee.
If the employer has a policy allowing temporarily disabled workers to ease back into work with modified tasks or different assignments, similar flexibility must be shown to the pregnant worker. If an employer generally holds open a job for a certain period of time for someone out on sick leave or disability leave, a pregnant employee is entitled to such treatment, no more or less.
Ironclad rules are more likely to expose companies to liability under the federal discrimination law. A rule requiring a pregnant employee on leave to stay on leave until the baby is born, regardless of whether she may have recovered from the condition related to the pregnancy, invites a lawsuit. Employers also cannot have a policy that prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined time period after giving birth.
Job applicants with African-American-sounding names are far less likely to get a callback than are similarly qualified "white" candidates, according to researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT, who submitted 5,000 bogus resumes in response to job ads. Half the resumes bore stereotypical African-American names such as Latonya and Tyrone; half sported traditionally Anglo names like Kristin and Brad.
Candidates with Caucasian-sounding names were contacted more frequently than those with a presumed ethnic identity and identical resume. That is, 10 percent of those with typically white names were called back, compared to just 6.7 percent with black-sounding names. Some names may be especially unpalatable for employers: Tamika was called back 5 percent of the time; Aisha, a scant 2 percent.
Marianne Bertrand, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Chicago, also found that highly qualified "black" candidates had no advantage over their less qualified black peers, but "white" candidates' odds of an interview skyrocketed with increased skills.
Cancer sufferers still face discrimination at work despite amendments to Disability Discrimination Act
05 October 2006 10:16
Employers are still discriminating against women with cancer despite changes in the law aimed at protecting workers from unfair treatment.
Figures from the Disability Rights Commission's (DRC) helpline show that this year the DRC has taken on average two calls a week from women with breast cancer complaining of unfair treatment at work.
In total, more than 70 women with breast cancer and 103 people with other forms of cancer have called its helpline complaining of problems with their employers.
And in December 2005 means people with these conditions receive legal protection from the point of diagnosis.
Among callers with other cancers, most (82%) cited employers failing to make reasonable adjustments that would keep them in work; nearly one in five callers reported having been dismissed; a further 13% of callers complained of facing threats of dismissal; and nearly 6% of callers were facing disciplinary action.
For workers with cancer, reasonable adjustments could include flexible working, alterations to working hours and time off for medical treatment.
Agnes Fletcher, assistant director of communications at the DRC, said: "Despite changes in the law to protect people with cancer and long-term health conditions from unfair treatment at work, many employers still haven't got the message.
"Direct discrimination and failures to make adjustments is turning the world of work into a very hostile environment for workers with these disabilities."
As I promised, when I published "The American Way" I am ready to broach the subject of workplace discrimination in the 21st century. Although, again, if you will find yourself offended by this topic, please read no further.
The basis of this article is a topic close to my heart. As you already know, if you have read the above-mentioned, I am married to a black man and live in the heart of the Deep South.
What you don't know is since I lost my job, in January, 1999, I have been a self-employed jane of all trades in order to avoid putting myself in the same situation again, and having to watch others being exploited and passed over lateral transfers or promotions because of their gender or race. The things I saw in the corporate world of this particular organization sent my head reeling.
For a little background:
I started out with the company in the file room as a temp, and was granted the opportunity to post for an internal position because of my work performance. I tested for and was hired for the position.
My boss was ecstatic with my work. He praised me all over the building, from Human Resources to the company president. I was the best secretary he'd ever had.
Four months into my probationary period, a job came open for which I was highly qualified and that would pay more that $2000 a year more. So I posted for it. There was no harm in trying.
Then I got sick. I had to be off work for over a week, doctor's orders. While I was at home, recovering, I decided to get some pictures together to put on my desk as work.
The Monday I went back to work, I made sure I was there a few minutes early so I could put up my pictures and make my desk my own. My boss came back from a business trip the next afternoon. When I came back from lunch, he wrote me up for being off work, after he had been so nice about my getting well.
A short time later, I was told that I would have to have him sign a paper and referral in order to be considered for the new position. I gave him the paper. What I got back was apalling. I couldn't believe the terrible things he had to say about my work. I knew what had happened, and I knew why, but because he did it in such a sly way, there was no way for me to fight it.
Although I got the new position, I was watched constantly and was made to perform at a rate much higher that the others in the department. I received no training and was expected to complete tasks based on former knowledge. It was a hopeless situation. It wasn't long before I was asked to resign. There had been too many complaints. There had been too much work returned. The me interject here that my work was exemplary and my error ratio was less than 3%. My co-workers' error ratios, from what I could tell, were closer to 10%. So, I asked what was an acceptable ratio. Upon being told that it is up to the discretion of the supervisor, I knew I was gone. There is no way to fight termination when the state you live in has "at will" termination for all employers, and the company has no ground rules, with one exception. That exception being dress code for the women. We weren't allowed to go to work without pantyhose or stockings under our skirts.
So I resigned.
In the meantime, I had learned from many people who'd worked there for years, that women and non-whites were never promoted beyond supervisory level. There was only one black male working in a position above that of custodian in the entire state, and his was a field position. No female in the company ever managed to get above a grade 9 pay scale because the management positions were strictly for the men.
Black women were passed over for promotion on a regular basis, and the jobs were filled from outside, with white employees who had fewer skills and qualifications. No explanation, or even an apology.
New discrimination, or just the old stuff being handled in a way that won't get the company in trouble? You tell me. I would love to hear your comments.
Next time...segregation and racial/sexual discrimination within a county school district that is so blatantly obvious I don't know how they get away with it.
college Essay
Essay
My first years of high school weren’t too good. My parents were in the middle of splitting up and it was affecting me in all aspects of my life. Since my parents had been together for most of my life I couldn’t understand why they were slitting up after 20 years of marriage. My first two years of high school were also affected by this; I was not doing well in school or at home with my family.
It was my junior year when things finally started to pick back up for me. My parents were getting back together and my life was coming back together. I knew I messed up my first two years of high school but there was still time to fix some of my mistakes. Junior year was a complete turnaround for me in school and at home. My grades went up in all my classes and I received honor roll all four marking periods my junior year. I finished my junior year with a more positive outlook on life and almost straight A’s in school. I was a different person then what I used to be and it was all for the better. I was getting along with my family and teachers and on the road to success.
Now its senior year and I’m still feeling good about school and doing better then ever. My first marking period grades were very good and I’m excited for college. College is the next big step I’m going to have to take in my life and I’m excited for the fun times and challenges it’s going to bring me throughout the next four years.
My first years of high school weren’t too good. My parents were in the middle of splitting up and it was affecting me in all aspects of my life. Since my parents had been together for most of my life I couldn’t understand why they were slitting up after 20 years of marriage. My first two years of high school were also affected by this; I was not doing well in school or at home with my family.
It was my junior year when things finally started to pick back up for me. My parents were getting back together and my life was coming back together. I knew I messed up my first two years of high school but there was still time to fix some of my mistakes. Junior year was a complete turnaround for me in school and at home. My grades went up in all my classes and I received honor roll all four marking periods my junior year. I finished my junior year with a more positive outlook on life and almost straight A’s in school. I was a different person then what I used to be and it was all for the better. I was getting along with my family and teachers and on the road to success.
Now its senior year and I’m still feeling good about school and doing better then ever. My first marking period grades were very good and I’m excited for college. College is the next big step I’m going to have to take in my life and I’m excited for the fun times and challenges it’s going to bring me throughout the next four years.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
