Lucas v Dole Essay Example for Free

Lucas v Dole Essay In the Fall of 1987, plaintiff Julia Lucas appeals the dismissal of her job discrimination suit. Lucas, a white woman, argues that she was the victim of reverse discrimination when Rosa Wright, a less qualified black woman, was promoted to the Quality Assurance and Training Specialist position at her job. The judge dismissed the claim, finding that Lucas did not make out a prima facie case (Open Jurist, 2011). Statement of the Problem Both Julia Lucas, a white woman, and Rosa Wright, a black woman, work for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). They both applied for Quality Assurance and  Training Specialist (QATS) positions at the Flight Service Station in Leesburg, Virginia. Both women, along with nineteen other applicants, were qualified for the two positions that were available. Edward Dietz, the official who interviewed the top four applicants, selected Rosa Wright and another woman named Sharon Hall as the best candidates to fill the positions. Edward Dietz did not consider Julia Lucas. Lucas believed she was reverse discriminated and took the case to court (Open Jurist, 2011). Findings of Fact It was verified that although FAA determined that all nineteen applicants were ualified, Wright did not have a current Pilot Weather Briefing Certificate at the time of her selection, a QATS job requirement. Lucas presented other evidence in order to show discrimination. She testified to the subjective nature of the interviewing process, which consisted of five general questions concerning the QATS position. She presented Lucas v. Dole 3 evidence that her answers were detailed and job specific, while Wrights were broad and could apply to many jobs. Evidence also showed that in July 1985, Wright was given a temporary position involving education and training of students learning about the air raffic control system. The temporary position was not advertised to other workers in the customary way, and Wright was selected before some workers knew of the opening. Five other employees also testified that race may have been a factor in the selection of Wright and in other situations at the Leesburg facility. Favoritism there had helped create poor labor-management relations, although it is not clear whether the favoritism was racially motivated. The last piece of evidentiary support Lucas had was the comparison of her own professional experience and qualifications with those of Wright (Open Jurist, 2011). Impact in the Workplace Reverse discrimination is a controversial form of discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, including the city or state, or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group† (Wikipedia, 2011). Whether discrimination is reversed or not, Conclusions The judge dismissed the case, finding that Julia Lucas did not make out a prima facie case. In other words, it was not â€Å"based on the first impression; nor was it accepted as correct until proven otherwise† (Wikipedia, 2011). A prima facie case of unequal treatment by direct or indirect evidence of discrimination is under the McDonnell Douglas framework. To establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job that was open; (3) she was rejected, and (4) the job remained vacant. Lucas satisfies the basic requirements of McDonnell Douglas, except that the job did not remain open. In her testimony, Lucas admitted that she scored in the bottom third among the interviewees, and that those above her included blacks, whites and Hispanics. In conclusion, there was no evidence that racial discrimination was involved in Rosa Wright’s promotion. (Open Jurist, 2011).

Monica Lewinsky: Women in Society, Body Image and Feminism :: Essays Papers

Monica Lewinsky: Women in Society, Body Image and Feminism In the current post-impeachment proceedings the question becomes whom it has affected most and what it will mean to them and their agenda. Obvious groups that will suffer most from the impeachment that are subject to the after effects are the Republican Party and American politics in general. As far as individuals are concerned, Monica Lewinsky has a good deal of post-scandal baggage. But what about those who will experience the effects of Monica and what she represents as a woman in American society? The movement which has suffered the most in the standpoint of social and political agenda are the Feminists. Using Feminist criticism to analyze the discourse surrounding and as well as by the speaker, Monica, I aim to reveal how women's place in society led by the Feminist's has changed due the sex scandal and where it maybe headed next. In looking at this aspect of the scandal it becomes crucial not just to analyze the discourse of Feminists and Monica but to find it in a larger scheme of a society which shapes many of the gender roles and pressures put on individuals to look and act in certain ways. There is an evident change in the role of women in American society that has occurred as a result of the scandal which is important not just to the Feminists and their supporters but to any female who enters the public arena and is faced with pressures and expectations put on them as a result of their gender. As a leading special interest group, Feminists, who are politically active concerning gender roles in society, have been at the forefront of the Paula Jones case and the Lewinksy-Clinton scandal. What comes at odds with the Feminist stance in politics is a womanizing Democratic President that they support and his opportunizing and provocative young mistress. It was something the Feminists were neither prepared for nor easily responded to when given the option of a liberal President with sexual issues or the conservative, Republican moralists taking charge. We deplore his misconduct but we also understand the hypocrisy of his opponents. We Have years of progress at stake if the President is hounded out of office. But worse yet, We wish the ushering into power of a puritanical or fundamentaliststs, sex police which Speaks of freedom but allows government to destroy the right of privacy.

Operations Management Question

FALL 2011 2011 Deadline: October 26, Middle East Technical University – Northern Cyprus Campus BUS 361 Operations Management Homework 1 – Solutions 1. Fruit Computer Company manufactures memory chips in lots of ten chips. From past experience, Fruit knows that 80% of all lots contain 10% (1 out of 10) defective chips, 20% of all lots contain 50% (5 out of 10) defective chips. If a good batch (that is, 10% defective) of chips is sent on to the next stage of production, processing costs of $1000 are incurred, and if a bad batch (that is, 50% defective) is sent on to the next stage of production, processing costs of $4000 are incurred.Fruit also has the alternative of reworking a batch at a cost of $1000. A reworked batch is sure to be a good batch. Alternatively, for a cost of $100, Fruit can test one chip from each batch in an attempt to determine whether the batch is defective. Determine how Fruit can minimize the expected total cost per batch. Expected total cost per b atch = $1580. Fruit can minimize the expected total cost per batch by choosing the following decisions: It should test a chip.If the tested chip is defective, Fruit should rework the batch. If the tested chip is not defective, however, Fruit should send batch on to the next stage. See the following figure for details. Probabilities regarding testing a chip are calculated as follows. D: Chip is defective, D’: Chip is not defective, BB: Bad Batch, GB: Good Batch P(GB) = 0. 8, P(BB) = 0. 2, P(D | GB) = 0. 1, P(D’ | GB) = 0. 9, P(D | BB) = 0. 5, P(D’ | BB) = 0. 5, P(D) = (0. 8)(0. 1) + (0. 2)(0. 5) = 0. 18, P(D’) = 1 – P(D) = 0. 82P(GB | D) = (P(D|GB) P(GB) + P(D|BB)P(BB)) / P(D) = 8/18 P(BB | D) = 1 – P(GB | D) = 10/18 P(GB | D’) = (P(D’|GB) P(GB) + P(D’|BB)P(BB)) / P(D’) = 72/82 P(BB | D’) = 1 – P(GB | D’) = 10/82 1 2. A retailer of electronic products has asked a particular manufacturer to begi n daily deliveries rather than on a weekly basis. Currently the manufacturer delivers 2000 cases each Monday. The cost of each case is valued at $300. a. What is the average inventory (in units)? b. The average inventory (in dollars)? c. What is the inventory turnover? . What is the average inventory (in dollars) for the daily delivery pattern, assuming 20 days/month? a. Average inventory = (2000 + 0) / 2 = 1000 units. b. Average inventory = 300 * 1000 = $300,000 c. Inventory turnover = Net sales / Average Inventory = 52 * 2000 / 1000 = 104 d. Average inventory = (2000/5 + 0) / 2 = 200 units Average inventory = 300 * 200 = $60,000 3. METU NCC Student Affairs officer, Sinem, is checking the accuracy of student registrations each day. For each student this process takes exactly two and a half minutes.There are times when Sinem gets quite a backlog of files to process. She has argued for more help and another computer, but her manager doesn’t think capacity is that stressed. Use the following data to determine the utilization of her and her computer. She works seven and a half hours per day (she gets 30 minutes off for lunch), 5 days per week. What is the utilization of Sinem and Sinem’s computer? The following data are fairly typical for a week: 3 Total number of files to process = 70 + 150 + 130 + 120 + 160 = 630 Time it takes Sinem to process the files in each week = 630 files * 2. min/file = 1575 minutes. Total working hours available in a week = 7. 5 hours/day * 5 days = 7. 5 * 5 = 37. 5 hours = 37. 5 * 60 minutes = 2250 minutes / week Utilization = Actual working time / Time available = 1575 / 2250 = 70% 4. Consider the following three-station production line with a single product that must visit station 1, 2, and 3 in sequence: †¢ Station 1 has 4 identical machines with a processing time of 15 minutes per job. †¢ Station 2 has 10 identical machines with a processing time of 30 minutes per job. Station 3 has 1 machine with a processi ng time of 3 minutes per job. a. What is rb (bottleneck rate) for this line? b. Can this system satisfy the daily demand of 180 units (assume 2 shifts in a day, and 4 hours in a shift)? c. What is T0 (raw processing time) for this line? d. What is W0 (critical WIP) for this line? Station 1 Production rate (jobs/min) Production rate (jobs/day) = 128 Station 2 Station 3 = 160 = 160 a. Station 1 is the bottleneck station, which has bottleneck rate, rb = 4/15. b.Because the bottleneck station’s production rate of 128 is less than the daily demand of 180 units, this system cannot satisfy the daily demand. 4 c. T0 = 15 + 30 + 3 = 48 minutes. d. W0 = rb * T0 = 4/15 * 48 = 12. 8 13 units. 5. The final assembly of Noname PCs requires a total of 12 tasks. The assembly is done at the Lubbock, Texas plant using various components imported from Far East. The tasks required for the assembly operations, task times and precedence relationships between tasks are as follows: Task Task Time (mi n)Immediate Predecessors 1 2 2 2 2 3, 4 7 5 6, 9 8, 10 11 Positional Weight 70 58 31 27 20 29 25 18 18 17 13 7 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 6 6 2 2 12 7 5 1 4 6 7 1 2 3 5 7 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 Given that the company produces one assembled PC every 15 minutes, a. Assign tasks to workstations using the Ranked Positional Weight Algorithm. b. Calculate balance delay and workload imbalance for your solution. c. Evaluate optimality of your solution (in terms of number of workstations, balance delay and workload imbalance). 5 a. Order of tasks: 1, 2, 3, 6, 4, 7, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12WS 1 1 15 3 WS 2 2, 3, 4 15 9 3 1 WS 3 6, 5, 9 15 3 1 0 WS 4 7, 8 15 8 3 WS 5 10, 11 15 11 5 WS 6 12 15 8 Thus, the number of workstations found by RPW heuristic is equal to 6. ? b. Balance Delay (D) = b1= 3, b2= 1, b3= 0, b4= 3, b5= 5, b6= 8 ? = 20/6 = 3. 33, Workload Imbalance (B) = v c. Lower bound on number of workstations = [ ] [? ] =[ ] LB[D] = 0, LB[B] =0. None of the lower bounds are equal to the obtai ned objective values (K*, D, B). Thus, we do not know whether the solution obtained by RPW heuristic is optimal or not. 6

Morrill Tariff the Real Cause of the Civil War

Over the years, some people have claimed the real cause of the American Civil War was a generally forgotten law passed in early 1861, the Morrill Tariff. This law, which taxed imports to the United States, was said to be so unfair to southern states that it caused them to secede from the Union. This interpretation of history, of course, is controversial. It conveniently ignores the issue of slavery, which had become the dominant political issue in America in the decade preceding the Civil War. So the simple answer to common questions about the Morrill Tariff is, no, it was not the real cause of the Civil War.   And people who claim a tariff caused the war seem to be trying to obscure, if not ignore, the fact that slavery was the central issue of the secession crisis in late 1860 and early 1861. Indeed, anyone examining newspapers published in America during the 1850s will immediately see that the issue of slavery was prominent. The continually escalating tensions over slavery had certainly not been some obscure or side issue in America. The Morrill Tariff, however, did exist. And it was a controversial law when passed in 1861. It did outrage people in the American South, as well as business owners in Britain who traded with the southern states. And it is true that the tariff was mentioned at times in secession debates held in the south just prior to the Civil War. But claims that the tarriff provoked the war would be an enormous stretch. What Was the Morrill Tariff? The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country  and it also raised rates. The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a congressman from Vermont. It was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe. Southern states were strongly opposed to the new tariff. The Morrill Tariff was also particularly unpopular in England, which imported cotton from the American South, and in turn exported goods to the U.S. The idea of a tariff was actually nothing new. The United States government had first enacted a tariff in 1789, and a series of tariffs had been the law of the land throughout the early 19th century. Anger in the South over a tariff was also nothing new.  Decades earlier, the notorious  Tariff of Abominations  had angered residents in the South, prompting the Nullification Crisis. Lincoln and the Morrill Tariff It has sometimes been alleged that Lincoln was responsible for the Morill Tariff. That idea does not stand up to scrutiny. The idea of a new protectionist tariff did come up during the election campaign of 1860, and Abraham Lincoln, as the Republican candidate, did support the idea of a new tariff. The tariff was an important issue in some states, most notably Pennsylvania, where it was seen as beneficial to factory workers in various industries. But the tarriff it was not a major issue during the election, which was, naturally, dominated by the big issue of the time, slavery. The tariffs popularity in Pennsylvania helped influence the decision of President Buchanan, a native of Pennsylvania, to sign the bill into law. Though he was often accused of being a doughface, a northerner who often supported policies that favored the South, Buchanan sided with his home states interests in supporting the Morrill Tariff. Furthermore, Lincoln did not even hold public office when the Morrill Tariff was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Buchanan. It is true that the law went into effect early in Lincolns term, but any claims that Lincoln created the law to penalize the South would not be logical. Was Fort Sumter a "Tax Collection Fort"? There is a historical myth which circulates at times on the internet that Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the spot where the Civil War began, was really a tax collection fort. And thus the opening shots of the rebellion by the slave states in April 1861 were somehow connected to the newly enacted Morrill Tariff. The attack on Fort Sumter. Getty Images   First of all, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with tax collection. The fort had been constructed for coastal defense following the War of 1812, a conflict which saw the city of Washington burned and Baltimore shelled by a British fleet. The government commissioned a series of forts to protect major ports, and the construction of Fort Sumter began in 1829, unconnected from any talk of tariffs. And the conflict over Fort Sumter which culminated in April 1861 actually began the previous December, months before the Morrill Tariff became law. The commander of the federal garrison in Charleston, feeling threatened by the secessionist fever overtaking the city, moved his troops to Fort Sumter on the day after Christmas 1860. Up to that point the fort was essentially deserted. It was certainly not a tax collection fort. Did the Tariff Cause the Slave States to Secede? No, the secession crisis really began in late 1860, and was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Politicians in the slave states were outraged by Lincolns electoral victory. The Republican Party, which had nominated Lincoln, had been formed years earlier as a party opposed to the spread of slavery. It is true that mentions of the Morrill bill, as the tariff was known before it became law, appeared during the secession convention in Georgia in November 1860. But mentions of the proposed tariff law were a peripheral issue to the much larger issue of slavery and the election of Lincoln. Seven of the states that would form the Confederacy seceded from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861, before the passage of the Morrill Tariff. Four more states would secede following the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. While mentions of tariffs and taxation can be found within the various declarations of secession, it would be quite a stretch to say that the issue of tariffs, and specifically the Morrill Tariff, was the real cause of the Civil War.