Case Study for Canady vs Walmart Essay

1. In your own words, what does pretext mean?Pretext is a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.2. Write a paragraph that supports the course that Canadys dismissal was based on racial discrimination.Canadys would say that his dismissal was based on racial discrimination because Smith a manager introduced himself as a slave driver. Next Smith, study Canady Whats up, my nigga? and was also referred to as a lawn jockey. He also claimed that Smith do states that all African American look alike, and that his skin color wiped off on towels. Since Canady did not enunciate these comments when Smith made them Smith continued to use the phase from the Rush Hour movie. He could also believe that the day we was left(p) in the department by himself that care was discriminating against him because he was left to do all the work with no help.3. Write a paragraph that supports that argument that Wal-Marts ending was based on Canadys insubordination. Wal-Marts decision was based on insubordination for one Canady was alimentation in an area where there are policies in place that prohibits easting in the food preparation area. When asked to damp eating in the prohibited area Canady started an argument with management. After the store manager was called to help with the patch Canady continued argue loudly in front of customers and other associates. Candy did not follow the constitution that does not allow employees to eat in the food preparation area and he was arguing with management in front of other was insubordination.4. Research the case. How did the court rule? Why did they rule in this direction?The wrongful termination claim, that claim fails to make out a leading(predicate) facie case in that Canady failed to manifest the fourth prong (i.e. that there are facts that permit an inference of discrimination). Alternatively, even if Canady made out a prima facie case, he failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext. Th e fact that Smith made racially offensive remarks is of no consequence because those remarks were made outside of the decision making process. The ruling on the hostile work environment claim, the Court found that Smiths comments are not sufficiently offensive to the actionable. The Circuit assess Lay dissents.