In the ruling delivered by Judge Carol Los Mansmann in Schurr v. Resorts International Hotel Inc, the judge states that affirmative action cannot mirror Title VII’s purpose unless it is meant to remedy a discriminatory history against protected groups. The case was a pure legal question of narrow depth and quite focused in nature as its facts are quite simple. In the case, Schurr states that the Casino infringed on his employment rights and discriminated against him on the basis of race. He argues that the act by the casino infringes on his rights under Title VII provisions. He further argues that the affirmative action applied by casino ought to be struck down as they were unconstitutional.
Judge Mansmann states that the purpose of the regulations was to prohibit discrimination. In this sense, the regulations are meant to encourage businesses to attain a balanced composition of employees at the work place. Additionally, the regulations ensure that there is affirmative action towards the recruitment and employment of minorities. According to the regulations on affirmative action in casino employment, a casino that fails to achieve the 25% threshold for minorities and women must make documentations that show it made good faith efforts towards the recruitment and hiring of qualified persons under this category (Barth, 2008).
It is clear that the regulation uses broad language to refer to the 25% requirement for women and minorities and does not give an express and mandatory requirement for the threshold to be achieved. It only requires that there be a show of good faith efforts towards the recruitment and hiring of qualified women and minorities. In the appeal ruling by Judge Mansmann, she states that Shurr does not have the standing to file a suit against the commissioner. This is can be supported by the fact that Schurr could not show that the minority employment goals required of the casinos invaded interests that are legally protected and not hypothetical interests as was suggested by Schurr. Schurr could not prove the frequency with which a job vacancy arose in his field and how often he competed with minorities or women for the jobs.
The damages awarded to Schuur on the action against resorts are appropriate. From the record summary judgment, it is clear that the adoption of the recruitment plan by the Resort was not intended as a remedy to the imbalance in the casino workforce. The similarity between Schurr’s claim and the Taxman v. Board of Education of Piscataway case in which the employer chose a black candidate over a white one for affirmative action purposes though both had equal qualification for the job. In the Taxman case, it was held that the employers a plan violated Title VII because the employer could not show that the choice of employee was meant to address historical discrimination (Barth, 2008). This logic can apply to Schurr’s case.
The ruling against Resorts was just because it applied a deficient affirmative action plan in its recruitment process. The regulations used to develop the plan did not have a basis created out of any historical or existing discrimination at the time. The plan was not developed to respond to a manifested imbalance or a finding of imbalance in job categories at the casino. The casino clearly misused the regulations by stating then as a reason for not hiring Schurr. As such, the court of appeal made a just ruling.
Barth, S. C. (2008). Hospitality law: Managing legal issues in the hospitality industry. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Schurr v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc., 196 F.3d 486 (3rd Cir. 1999) U.S. 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals Reports