Does the EEOC/MCAD have jurisdiction?
From the evidence, it is clear that both the EEOC and the MCAD have jurisdiction in this case.
- 1. Was the complaint filed in a timely manner? Yes, it was filed within 180 days of the alleged violation to comply the EEOC guidelines and within 300 days to comply with the MCAD guidelines. The violation occurred on January 23, 2006 and the complaint was filed seven days later on January 30, 2006.
- 2. Are the employer and employee covered by Title VII or related laws? Yes, the employer is covered under The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979 which is an amendment to Title VII (15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks per year) and under Massachusetts state law (6 or more employees). All employers covered by Title VII are covered by the pregnancy discrimination act. Marie Sarducci is an employee under the act and not an exception because of being a political appointee or federal contractor.
- 3. Is the complaint covered by Title VII or related laws? Yes, the complainant is alleging pregnancy discrimination which is covered by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979, an amendment to Title VII and a form of illegal sex discrimination. This is also covered under Massachusetts law.
- 4. Does the complainant have standing to file? Yes, because the complainant is the victim claiming the discrimination.
- 5. Was the complaint properly filed? We assume so since both the EEOC and MCAD staff assist the complainant in the process.
2. What definition would be appropriate for the facts of the case?
From the facts of this case, it is evident that the appropriate definition of discrimination would be Disparate Treatment. Disparate Treatment discrimination occurs when an employer treats individuals ...