Final answer:
The assertion that courts always grant relief beyond the law for unfair employment treatment is false. Courts rely on laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to decide if employment actions are illegal, not merely unfair.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that courts have a general obligation to ensure that adverse employment actions are fair, and thus are always willing to look beyond the law to grant relief to a plaintiff treated unfairly, is false. Courts are bound by the laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets specific guidelines for what constitutes illegal employment discrimination, including discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
When evaluating such cases, courts apply strict legal standards, particularly in circumstances involving discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics. The role of the courts is not to assess the fairness of every employment decision, but rather to determine whether the law has been violated.
For example, the Supreme Court ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. declared that requirements in a job description, such as demanding a high school diploma, that disproportionately affect one race over another are illegal if they are not directly related to job performance.
Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Grutter decision, allowing for race to be considered as a 'plus factor' in university admissions to achieve a diverse student body. However, in cases such as the gender discrimination suit against Walmart, the Court can decide against the plaintiffs, demonstrating that not all claims of unfair treatment will receive relief beyond what the law mandates.