The case of Zippittelli V. J.C. Penny Company was initiated because Zippittelli, a 66 years old employer of the company, claimed that her employer, J.C. Penney demonstrated discriminative actions against her, which were based on age concerns. The plaintiff alleged Age Discrimination of Employment Act violations, violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and particularly Title VII, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
These claims were brought against the company and the plaintiff’s supervisor at the Moosic center. The relief expected by the plaintiff was appointment to the position she was denied because on the basis of age discrimination; she also expected to have back pay, costs, fees of the attorney, front pay, as well as payment for punitive and liquidated damages (Zippittelli v. J.S. Penney Co).
Case questions
If the equal work standard were to apply, could situations exist where a discriminatorily under-paid woman would be unable to obtain a remedy?
No. the reason is that application of the equal work standards, which are supported by the legislation of the United States of America, ensure that if women, as well as men, are under paid because of unfair treatment (which involves cases of discrimination because of age) or because of some other reason which is not fault of the plaintiff, ensures that the person who was under paid would be able to obtain a remedy (Zippittelli v. J.S. Penney Co).
If a conversation that an employee had with her supervisor about applying for a promotion results in a question about age and a response by the supervisor when she found out that the applicant was 63 and that the applicant would “probably not” get the position, coupled with the fact that the applicant had better performance evaluations than the younger woman who was awarded the position, would not a reasonable layperson in the position of the applicant think that she had been discriminated against because of age?
The plaintiff claimed that she had better evaluations of her professional performance than the younger worker who was promoted, and who had “inferior record in areas supposedly determinative of eligibility for promotion, like attendance.”
However, this evidence could not be used by the jury to find that the reasons which were stated by the employer for the decision of promotion were mere pretext.
The evidence was used with the aim to convince the jury that the decision of employment made by the employer was wrong, not that it “was motivated by an animus toward plaintiff because of her age (Zippittelli v. J.S. Penney Co).”
Was the fact that the plaintiff had better performance evaluations than the younger worker promoted to the job evidence of the discriminatory intent because of age?
No, the fact that the plaintiff had better performance evaluations than the younger worker promoted to the job was not an evidence of discrimination on the basis of age, but it convinced the jury that the decision taken by the employer was wrong.
Was Benko’s remark that the plaintiff would “probably not get the job” when the plaintiff revealed her age sufficient …