Patterson v McLean Credit Union Revised

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
According to the case, Patterson was not given justice despite it being clear that as a black female, who worked for the McLean Credit Union (MCU) she was treated unfairly in many ways. Evidently, this worker was denied training, promotion, replacement whenever she was absent and other benefits. On the other hand, other employees who she had similar positions enjoyed these benefits. Patterson was not served justice because even though section 1981 of the employment law was not in effect as far as the development of the contract is concerned, the human right itself forbids any form of discrimination (Stone, 2000, p. 519). According to the case, Patterson was discriminated against and despite her taking that long to report the case hoping that at last she will get promoted like other employees nothing was done about it (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009, p. 143). She knew that when she worked for a long time, maybe the supervisor will see her potential and stop stereotyping her and other black people.
If I were the manager, I would ask Patterson questions which are in line with her treatment at MCU. I will ask her to outline the various forms of discrimination that she has experienced in the institution. After answering me, I will ask her to state her recommendations or rather if she was the supervisor how she should have treated all employees. I will also ask her to present her documents such as academic qualifications, letter of appointment, and other letters requesting promotions.

I will match this with that of other employees who have been already promoted and know whether she was really discriminated against. I have learned that the interview process has to be objective and well calculated. All areas or rather concerned variables have to be looked at. The interview should not only look at some factors and assume others as in the case.
From the case, it is clear that no actions that Patterson’s alleged MCU engaged in were appropriate. This is because unlike other workers, she was not accorded fair treatment. MCU, and in this case the supervisor used to stare at her a factor that made her uncomfortable while working. Sometimes, she was assigned some menial tasks such as dusting which were not part of her job description (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009, p. 143). Whenever she was absent, the supervisor did not find other employees to take her position as she did with other employees who were white. MCU engaged in these actions because section 1981 of the employment law only looked into the functioning of the law and not its formulation. Therefore, according to the law, Patterson’s rights were not violated. McLean was, therefore, operating according to the employment law.
References
Bennett-Alexander, D., B., Hartman, L. (2018). Employment Law for Business (9th ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Stone, K. V. W. (2000). The New Psychological Contract: Implications of the Changing Workplace for Labor an Employment Law. Ucla L. Rev., 48, 519.