Weeks vs. Southern Bell Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Weeks vs. southerly Bell - Research Paper ExampleMrs. Weeks cede also appealed that her employer, Southern Bell should return the position to Mrs. Weeks along with compensation for damages inflicted for the activities of discrimination of sex. Mrs. Weeks call for also appealed for necessary action so that Southern Bell should refrain from such unlawful practices of exercising in future. The detailed records of the miscue indicate that Mrs. Weeks had applied for the post of switchman in South Bell on 17th March, 1966. Southern Bell refused the application of Mrs. Weeks on 18th April, 1966 citing the reason that the position of switchman and the duties and responsibilities associated with the post is non fit for women. Post this refusal, Mrs. Weeks filed an unsworn charge with the Equal Employment Opportunities counseling and a representative of the Commission obtained a sworn charge from Mrs. Weeks on 30th July, 1966. The Commission carried out investigations on the charges brou ght about by Mrs. Weeks on her employer Southern Bell and found there was no scope of judgment looking at the duties and responsibilities of switchman in the family that women are not fit for such positions (Staleup, 2005). On 19th April 1967, Mrs. Weeks was informed by the Commission that the conciliation procedure with Southern Bell has proved to be a failure and that Mrs. Weeks was provided a time period of 30 days to file the case against Southern Bell. The Commission appointed a counsel for Mrs. Weeks who filed the case against Southern Bell on her behalf on 18th May, 1967. In reply to this so-called unlawful practice of sex discrimination in the field employment in context to Mrs. Weeks, the comp whatsoever cross-appealed saying that as per the requirements of the code of law, there was no sworn charge filed by Mrs. Weeks within cardinal months of the alleged unlawful practice. As per the codes of jurisdiction, the refusal of the application for employment occurred on 18th April, 1966 and that the sworn charge should be filed within 90 days, i.e. by 30th July, 1966. The company highlighted that there was error on the part of the govern Court to overrule this aspect and based on these points, the company applied for dismissal of the charges filed by Mrs. Weeks against them. The territorial dominion Court validated the actions of the commission in this case saying that the amendments allow the Commission to charge cases filed beyond the time period of 90 days. The District also emphasized that irrespective of whether its is a sworn charge, any indite complaint against the offender or the employer by their employee or the victim that identifies the parties involved in the case and the alleged unlawful practices subject to courts judgment is deemed to be valid under the codes of jurisdiction. Southern Bell has held the view that that Commission only has the right to receive complaints from the aggrieved parties and take part in the administrative proce sses and not in any juridical process. Thus the commission has the right to take part in the process of settlement through conciliation, conference, etc. The Commission has no power to enforce juridical matters as it has done through engagement of the counsel on behalf of Mrs. Weeks (Robertson, 2006). In the context of this case, the legislative history is, however, motionless on the matter regarding the requirement of the charges to be filed by the aggrieved parties. The charge irrespective of its nature whether it is a written complaint or sworn charge is viewed to be the stimulant that initiates the proceedings against the alleged lawful practices standardised the case of sex based discrimination of employment