IndexFactsProblemRegulationApplicationConclusionThe treatment of employees in the workplace has been a major issue over the years with significant focus on the need to develop a crucial understanding of how we expects employers to involve their employees. Unexplained layoffs have been a source of concern for employees who are unable to focus on their overall performance within an organizational environment. There are a number of key issues that need to be addressed when focusing legal attention on employee engagement. Workplace discrimination has been a major issue in the workplace where it has been difficult to develop a better understanding of what needs to be considered in creating a well-engaged work environment. In one of the most iconic cases, McDonald's v. The Santa Fe Trail Transportation, a crucial decision was made regarding workplace discrimination, which has remained a key issue in the United States workplace. This document provides a detailed analysis of the McDonalds vs. Santa Fe Trail Transportation based on the Facts, Problem, Decision, Application and Conclusion model. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Facts McDonald and other fellow plaintiffs in the case and both whites along with black employee Charles Jackson worked at the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company. All three employees were accused of stealing merchandise from one of the company's shipments. A week after the incident, all three white employees were fired from the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company for improper conduct. Charles Jackson, the black employee, was not fired. Prior to the petitioners' decision to go to court to seek what they felt was justice denied on discriminatory grounds because of their race, they explored grievance processes and filing complaints with the Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission. These trials did not produce much relief as they sought to determine that the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company had not violated any of the underlying aspects, which protect employees from any form of discrimination as alleged by the fired workers (Hartman, Mersky & Tate, 2014). The plaintiffs then sued the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They alleged that this amounted to illegal workplace discrimination based on their race. The Southern District of Texas court that first heard the case ruled that firing the white employees while retaining the black employee did not amount to racial discrimination in the workplace as alleged by the fired white employees and therefore the lawsuit was dismissed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also reviewed the case and affirmed the decision and sentence issued by the district court in the case. The appellants were not satisfied with the decision made by the two courts and requested a review by the United States Supreme Court (Siegelman, 2016). Issue The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by firing them, which amounted to employment discrimination. Therefore the legal question addressed in this case is whether the Santa Fe Trail Transportation company violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by firing thepetitioners while retaining Charles Jackson's services and whether the decision made by the company constituted racial discrimination. The Human Rights Act 19964 required strict compliance where the provisions of the Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex and race in the hiring, promotion and dismissal of employees. Title VII of the Act created the Equal Employment Opportunity and Employment Commission, which was established with the primary goal of implementing the Civil Rights Act. The fact that all employees had been charged by Santa Fe Trail Transportation for gross misconduct, petitioners expected to receive the same treatment where they would all be fired or warned, which would amount to equal treatment in the workplace without focusing on the race or gender of employees. However, participants believe this was not the case considering the fact that Charles Jackson was not fired, which they perceived as not complying with civil rights law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was expected to find that the company had violated the Civil Rights Act, something the petitioners considered a simple case of workplace discrimination with firing that violates Provision VII of the Civil Rights Act civilians of 1964 (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017). Ruling The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the district and appeals court's decision based on a number of facts that had not been considered by the lower courts. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Marshall. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs stating that the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it fired white employees while retaining the services of the black employee. This was achieved through a critical review of the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not only aimed at protecting the rights and interests of black individuals, but incorporated the interests of all people in the United States without racial prejudice. Whites and blacks were protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The laws are not targeted at a particular race but are based on creating a better environment in which there is a better commitment within the United States to protect the environment working. the interests of everyone, regardless of race, as everyone is likely to experience violations of their rights (Hartman, Mersky & Tate, 2014). Enforcement A key aspect considered by the supreme was the underlying fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent formation of an Equal Employment Opportunity and Employment Commission under Title VII was not established to protect the interests of a particular race but was established to protect the interests of all American citizens regardless of their race. In this statement, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also protected the interests of white citizens as well as those of blacks. The Supreme Court observed that if the situation had been different in the sense that McDonald's was black, then the whole case would have had a different scope considering the fact that the mistake committed by all the employees justified equal treatment. Since the law protects the interests of American citizens and there is no special clause in the Civil Rights Act 1964 that gives black citizens of the United States an advantage when considering equal employment opportunities. The implementation of the law aimed to ensure that there was no discrimination in the workplace based on sex and race. If you consider the important aspects that have been evaluated on the basis of the case, there are.