MemoThe defendant’s establishments are accused of undertaking in practices that inhibit African Americans, disabled people on wheelchairs and deaf persons from enjoying the facilities that the defendant’s establishments.
These are violations of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Section 703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.This claims have no validity whatsoever as at not time has any person be they of African American origin, disabled on a wheelchair or deaf been unable to fully enjoy the defendant’s establishment due to practices of the defendant. The defendant’s establishment has ramps and handicap sections which are designed to ensure that the disabled enjoy the same services as any other able bodied person.There is a claim that the staff at the defendant’s establishment engage in racism in that some white servers refuse to serve black customers and this is tolerated by the management. This is in violation of the provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This claim is not valid as the establishment has a policy stipulating that any form of racism will not be allowed.The management and staff at the defendant’s establishment practice racial segregation by restricting African American to particular section of the establishments is an outright violation Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 any and all forms of racial segregation in hotels, restaurants, motels, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.The claims of the perpetration of racial segregation by managers and employees at any of the defendant’s establishment is totally frivolous and baseless as smoking zones are clearly set aside for smokes and not for African Americans.The claim goes on to claim discrimination as against disabled persons who are on wheel chairs as they are restricted to sitting at tables which are closest to the bathrooms. This is construed as a violation of their rights guaranteed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Disabled persons on wheelchairs are given tables nearest to the bathrooms so as to ease their movement if and when they wish to use the bathrooms.
There is also a claim that the defendant’s establishment engages in the discriminatory service of providing inferior services to African Americans and disabled persons. This is contrary to provision of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The claim ahs no validity as the staff at the defendant’s establishment provides the same quality of service across the board regardless of the person.
The plaintiff sets out a claim that the defendant’s establishments is discriminatory as it has not made provision which cater for people with disabilities. This is as per the plaintiff is a clear violation Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which seeks to ensure that public services are friendly to people with disabilities. This claim is valid as staffs at the defendant’s establishment are not fluent in sign language. The government has the remedy of fines being imposed on the establishment, (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990).The act of hiring “beautiful and buxom women” is discriminatory as it does not provide equal employment opportunities for all women. The compliant against the defendant is that their actions are in violation of Section 703(h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The claim is not valid as employers reserve the right to employ staff who are fit for the job they provide, (Civil rights Act, 1964).ReferencesThe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law No.
101-336, came into force on July 26, 1990.The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394 came into force on September 26, 1973.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Law No. 88-352, 78 Statute. 241 came into force on July 2, 1964.