Final answer:
The statement concerning Fragante v. City of Honolulu case is false; while the plaintiff proved discrimination based on his accent, the court ruled it was not a valid national origin discrimination claim because of the job's verbal communication requirements.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement about Case #17, Fragante v. City of Honolulu, is false. In this case, Manuel Fragante did bring a claim of national origin discrimination against the City of Honolulu because he was not hired due to his pronounced Filipino accent.
However, the court concluded that while Fragante had proven he was discriminated against due to his accent, which was tied to his national origin, the City of Honolulu had a legitimate reason for the action because effective verbal communication was deemed essential for the job position in question. Therefore, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not have a valid claim of national origin discrimination.
This decision highlights the complexity of discrimination law, particularly when job qualifications are considered alongside discriminatory practices.The court ruling in Case #17, Fragante v. City of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1989), did not find that the plaintiff, Manuel Fragante, had a valid claim of national origin discrimination based on his
pronounced Filipino accent. The case involved a different issue and did not specifically address the hiring decision based on the accent. It's important to note that the information provided does not support the claim made in the question.