Employment at Law

1)
Based on the evidence described in the case, Marubeni America may face numerous legal problems. Because the company was claimed to pay higher salaries and bonuses to the Japanese and Asian executives, the company would be in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which requires equal pay for men and women performing equal work. The EPA provides that “employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment” (eeoc.gov).   If the company was indeed paying more to the Japanese and Asian than other employees for the same substantial work, the company would be in fault of the EPA. I believe that Marubeni America was intentionally discriminating against non-Asians due to the fact they were paying Asians a higher salary. Unless the Asians were performing different work, higher quality or substantially different work, they intentionally and knowingly discriminated in the form of compensation against non-Asians.
The lawsuit also describes that Marubeni America discriminated against American, non-Asian minority men and women by paying them less, promoting them less often, and terminating them more than Asians. This would put Marubeni America in violation of the EPA, and Title V11 of CRA which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because of the low numbers of   African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian managers and employees, weekly management meetings being conducted in Japanese, executives using ethnic and racial slurs, and Presto being denied permission to hire a African-American women, it is evident   that Marubeni America is indeed at fault of title V11. I feel that Marubeni America very much so violated the laws intentionally because of their actions listed above, especially due to the face that Presto was informed “we cannot hire a black person for this...