Ruby Tyler, a member of the United Pentecostal Church, was employed by a school district as an interpreter and tutor for deaf students. In this capacity, she worked at an elementary school for one year and at a middle school for two years. During her interpreting, Tyler modified language she found objectionable or informed students that the speaker had used undesirable language. The school district developed new guidelines mandating that interpreters convey all information verbatim. In addition to word-for-word interpretation to hearing impaired students, the district assigned her to work at the high school. Tyler refused to work at the high school under the new guidelines and was terminated by the district. She sued, claiming discrimination.
1. Does Tyler have a valid claim of discrimination? Why or why not?
2. Was the district's action arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of Tyler's religious beliefs?
3. Is Tyler justified in her actions? Why or why not?
4. Is the district justified in its action? Why or why not?
5. How would the court likely rule in this case? Provide a rationale.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Tyler does not have the right to claim discrimination. She is refusing to follow district policy by conveying all information verbatin and refusing to work at an asigned position at the high school.
ReplyDelete2. The district's actions were arbitrary and did not violate her religious beliefs.
3. Tyler is not justified in her actions. Her responsiblitly was to interpret for her students and not modify the language presented by the instructors.
4. The district is justified in their actions. They must ensure that all students receive the same information regardless of their disabilities. Tyler had been taking it upon herself to censor the material being presented to the hearing impaired students she was working with.
5. The court would rule in favor of the school district. Taylor had been taking it upon her self to exclude some students based on her religious view points of what was inappropriate.
1. KEVIN MAKES A GOOD POINT. THE JOB DESRIPTION REQUIRES HER TO REPEAT THE INTREPRETATION VERBATUM.
ReplyDelete2. NO, THE STUDENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE ALL THE IMFORMATION PRESENTED TO THEM IN ITS ENTIRITY.
3. NO, TYLER MADE A DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT THE NEW POSITION. I DON’T BELIVE SHE CAN MAKE A CONNECTION WITH HER REASSIGNMENT AS DISCRIMINATION.
4. I AGREE, TYLER SHOULD PRESENT THE IMFORMATION IN THE SAME CONTENT THAT THE OTHER STUDENTS WERE GIVEN.
5. I AGREE, THE COURTS WILL NOT FIND IN TYLER FAVOR. I DON’T BELIEVE TYLER CAN SHOW THAT SHE WAS DESCRIMINATED ON THE GROUNDS OF HER RELIGION.
I agree with Kevin and Carl. Tyler can not sue based on discrimination. Her personal beliefs and judgments can not be passed on to the students. The students with hearing impairment deserve to be able to be presented with the exact information as the non-hearing impaired students. Tyler refusing to accept a job at the high school is her decision but does not fall under the act of discrimination. The courts would rule in favor of the school district because there is no real evidence that the school did anything against school policy.
ReplyDeleteYou could certainly see your enthusiasm in the paintings you write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. Always go after your heart. Law tutor
ReplyDelete