Wedow versus City of Kansas City, Missouri
This case, which involves Ms. Wedow, who was chief battalion’s officer with Fire Department in Kansas City, was filed in 2006. This is because the reference jurisdiction, which attempts to determine if the plaintiff was treated differently by the Kansas City Fire Department due to her sex orientation where he was supposed to be given appropriate protective clothing and infrastructure, was submitted in 2005. This is clearly shown by the submission reference number concerning the case, which is," Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 476 (8th Cir.2005).” This jurisdiction needs that the plaintiff meets the threshold demanded by this provision. The case was submitted in 2005 and filed in the court in 2006, which qualifies the case to 2006.
The company had an opportunity of solving the complaints brought before them by plaintiffs by providing the necessary solutions to the presented complaints. This could shield the fire department from being affected financially when they would be required by the law to pay the damages to the two women chief battalions. The Kansas City Fire Department had an obligation of providing Ms. Medow and Ms. Keline proper fire-fighting protectors and facilities within the all branches of the department. This could have allowed the two battalions chiefs to carry out their duties effectively. The denial to access the appropriate clothing based on their sex orientation, amounted to adversely altering their working conditions hence leads to material employment disadvantage on the side of the two women.
The Fire Department had an opportunity to seek on the cases brought by the two plaintiffs against them. The department had a chance to defend the department through invoking the law based on the disparate treatment, which requires that the plaintiff is barred from filing the case within the day when the mistreatment was committed. In this case, the suit exceeds the needed number of days, which are 300, hence do not qualify the threshold of jurisdiction. This is because the plaintiffs were aware of the said treatment by the city, but failed to report the case within what the employment statue requires. The Fire Department had the responsibility of providing the two female employees with appropriate fire fighting clothing like the male employees. This is because under the employment act, the employees, regardless of their sex orientation, have equal rights. The two battalion chiefs had equal employment rights like their male counterparts. In denying the two chiefs appropriate fire fighting clothes and facilities, this amounted to discrimination and the city upon receiving the complaints should have acted before Ms. Kline and Ms. Medow filed the case.
The fire department should have convinced the two battalion chiefs on what the city was undertaking to ensure that they get the female fire fighting clothes and other facilities. This is because the jurisdiction recognizes the current efforts being carried by the fire department to meet the demands of its employees. The fire company could have further advised Ms. Kline and Ms. Medow on the impact of the case on the undertaking of the department on the demands. The two had to understand any court injunction sought would affect the ongoing developments within the fire department in Kansas City. The fire department needed, upon getting the complaints from the women, to weigh the available evidence. This would allow the fire department to prepare adequately the necessary departments. This is because some of the evidence presented by the two women on the ground of disparate treatment would not meet the threshold of the jury to be determined as judgment against the department.
The Kansas City Fire Department treated the two women by demeaning them because, they believed they were inferior and did not deserve the provision of complete firefighting equipment. They denied Ms. Medow and Ms. Kline their employment rights of being given equal employment rights as their male colleagues in the same department on the ground of their sex. This was clear in the manner in which women were treated in the provision of protective clothing for safety. The men on the other hand, were given two pairs of protective clothing, thus indicating that the fire department never conformed to equal employment rights on its employees. This consequently, violated their rights and made the working environment unfavorable for women. The department never gave women the needed protecting clothing, which was required for their work. This was evident through the complaints forwarded by the two chief battalion that the restrooms, for example, in various branches were situated in the male locker rooms.
The two women employees further claimed that the female restrooms in place were unhygienic and were used as rooms for storage. This exhibits of the Kansas City Fire Department undermines the role of women in their workplace by not providing favorable working conditions. As a result, entrenched culture of undermining the women in the department, the department never responded to the complaints forwarded by the two women. The department never gave the two women the necessary needed protective clothing in the workplace because the department, diverted the money allocated to building of female washrooms and other facilities to already completed female restroom. This shows that the department undermined women in their working environment and never conformed to the statue of equal employment act, thus amounting to a serious offense in law.
