The second case is Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corporation (1999), which pertained to age discrimination based on a discrepancy between two employees’ salaries despite similar qualifications. The employee who brought forth the complaint argued that she was being paid substantially less than her younger co-worker solely due to her age; furthermore, she also accused Hilton Hotels Corp. as well as its affiliates of creating a hostile work environment by constantly harassing her about her age . In response ,the court ruled in favor of Anderson awarding her $1 million from all defendants combined_ This ruling shocked many hoteliers around US causing them review revise respective policies ensure similar situation does occur again future__ Lastly , we have Krizeku v Mellon Financial Corporation (2006) wherein woman sued employer gender bias after she claimed not given same career prospects opportunities men working same firm_ Specifically plaintiff stated employed long period time yet unable receive advancement while males hired before during time frame able move ahead quickly even though they lacked experience required position sought out_ Ultimately jury agreed with claimant resulting verdict award compensatory punitive damages amounting total $360,000 This decision sent clear message financial services sector emphasizing need equal treatment regardless sex order avoid potential legal issues down line___ All three aforementioned cases demonstrate consequences irresponsible conduct employers are faced with regards discriminating against certain groups individuals violation federal state laws__ Not only this teaches valuable lesson those charge but encourages other organizations put appropriate measures place order prevent sorts occurrences since no one wants get tangled such lawsuits end day___

Sample Solution

The first case is Williams v. Eastman Kodak Company (1992) in which an African-American employee alleged race discrimination when he was passed up for promotion. The plaintiff argued that he had been denied the position due to his race and that the company had failed to take proper action when he reported it . The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and awarding him $50,000 in damages . This case set a precedent for future race discrimination cases both within and outside of Kodak, providing strong motivation for companies to be more aware of their hiring practices and diversity policies.