Background:

In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green the Supreme Court decision upheld that a charging party can prove unlawful discrimination indirectly by revealing, for example, in a hiring case that: 1) the person that applied and was qualified for the position sought; 2) the job was not offered to them; 3) the charging party is a member of a Title VII protected group; and 4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. If the plaintiff is able to prove these 4 elements, the employer must then be able to show a legitimate lawful reason for why the individual was not hired. The employee may still prevail if he can discredit the employer's alleged reason for not hiring him.

Respondent, a black civil rights protester, occupied with disorderly and unlawful action against a candidate as an attribute of his complaint that his release as an employee of petitioner's and the association's general contracting practices were ethnically persuaded. Whenever solicitor, who along with these lines publicized for the qualified workforce, discarded respondent's reemployment application because of the illegal direct. The respondent documented a protestation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging infringement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Question help:

• From the Egalitarian perspective, was either party ethical? Why? Why not? Cite facts from the case and key elements of Egalitarianism to support your conclusion.
• From the Libertarian perspective, was either party ethical? Why? Why not? Cite facts from the case and key elements of Libertarianism to support your conclusion.