Citation: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) Parties: Luis E. Melendez: Petitioner Facts: Petitioner was tried in state court on charges for distributing cocaine and trafficked in cocaine, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws and the prosecution entered into evidence certificates signed by state laboratory analysts, which stated that evidence seized from the petitioner was cocaine. The state called no witness to allow cross examination on the veracity of the report, but relied instead on a state law allowing affidavits of lab analysis to be admitted. Petitioner objected to admission of the certificates, claiming that their admission violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront the analysts who signed the certificates, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates under Mass. Gen. Laws.
MEMORANDUM TO: Managing Partner FROM: Ali Salameh RE: Memo 2; Garden State Tutoring Title VII Issue QUESTION PRESENTED Can Courtney Harrison establish a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on her supervisor Bill Drayton’s conduct of subjecting her to view and discuss photos of nude women while in his office, and emailing her such photos with suggestive comments? BRIEF ANSWER Probably yes. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is a prohibited form of sexual discrimination under Title VII. Courtney Harrison (Courtney) will likely have a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment when applying the Third Circuit test: (1) intentional discrimination because of sex; (2) discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) a reasonable person would find the work environment as hostile; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability. Bill Drayton (Bill) intentionally discriminated against Courtney’s sex when she was subjected to photos, questions, and comments regarding nude women.
Generally, employers have a qualified privilege for employment references, meaning an employer should be immune from liability for giving truthful information regarding a former employee. However, this may be cold comfort when an employer is later sued by the former employee for defamation or interference with a prospective business relationship, claiming that the information given was inaccurate or misleading. Unfortunately, by the time it is shown to a court that there can be no liability for the statements made by the employer, tens of thousands of dollars can easily have been spent in defense of the lawsuit, and never to be recovered (Kleiman, 2006). In the case, Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana Co., 987 P. 2d 1172 (N.M. Ct. App.1999), a mental health technician employed by the county was investigated for allegedly sexually harassing female inmates under his authority at a detention center. The investigation revealed inappropriate conduct, and the technician was informed that disciplinary action would be sought at a hearing scheduled by the employer.
Mr. Zannata March 30, 2012 Battered Woman’s Syndrome: Homolka's Excuse Karla Homolka was the wife and accomplice of the infamous serial rapist and killer, Paul Bernardo. Homolka used the battered women's syndrome as a legal defense for her actions, but there is an abundance of evidence to prove that she lied and used the disorder as an excuse to lessen her sentence. Learned helplessness is used to describe a phycologic response of a person to the repeated unpredictable exposure to a painful stimuli. This may have been the case with Homolka, yet, as stated on a women's advocacy site, out of the group of women who are diagnosed with 'learned helplessness', only a very small percentage commit acts of murder or sexual assault. Therefore this disorder does not give Homolka an excuse for her crimes.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
Thomas ended the affair and subsequently fired Mary based on her performance since the affair began. Mary filed a suit against Thomas Contracts, alleging that her discharge was due to gender discrimination, sex discrimination, and in violation of Title VII. Analyze and determine whether she succeeded. Identify and explain the applicable law and statutory authority in conjunction with the facts in the scenario to support your conclusion. (Points : 30) Mary Smith was an employee of Thomas Contracts, a pipeline construction company.
When a case is true at first glance and proceed to trial it is called a prima farce case, and based on the evidence Becket made the burden of proof and if the defendant isn't unable to come up with evidence proving him wrong, the plaintiff shall be awarded. Wheeler cannot claim that it was a business necessity to fire Becket, nor a seniority system or a bona fide qualification- none of these defenses used for this kind of situation could apply to the circumstances. The reason is because the Wheeler and his firm blatantly lack an ethical approach when it comes to Beckett's sexuality. Their negligent behavior resulted in a man who was once their star attorney, losing his job, in turn brought them to court, and won for their malpractices. Despite he was qualified for the position he was working, he was discharged in a questionable manner that raised reasonable belief of discrimination; he wasn't fired due to his lack of duties as they claimed, but the obvious lesions marked on his body.
Karnik could have avoided the unethical behavior by first contacting the other researchers and asking for permission to use their work and cite them properly. She could have also held her own research to ensure that the results she came up with were original. The way the unethical behavior was addressed and resolved was entirely appropriate. Although Dr. Karnik voluntarily submitted to the agreements that lasted only two years, her research misconduct still follows her around, blemishing her career achievements and withholding her heights should could have reached, had not inserted information to benefit her own research. Conclusion Whether research is performed in schools or businesses, researchers must abide by the ethical structures that are set in place for them.
Sterilizing a child is conflicting with autonomy of the patient even though the family’s interest is considered. (ashleytreatment.org)utilitarian theory is applied to this case because I am to make decisions that is in each persons individuals liberty, the parents or care givers. counter-arguing this, I would rather chose to plead in the court of law that in this particular case, my patient isn't mentally capable of making such a major decision and that her family is the next in line consent for
The police already know that they can’t be trusted so they allow people to move within their own firm snooping for agents that don’t belong. Some officers do things for personal gain that results false allegations. An example of this would be a woman in Cleveland that falsely accused police of raping her; during an open container citation on March 7, 23-year-old Danielle Eggleton was arrested on a warrant by two Third District police officers for assault on a police officer, attempted harassment of an inmate and resisting arrest. After officers transported her to the Cuyahoga County Jail, Eggleton said she was sexually assaulted by her arresting officers, according to the police report. (Cassandra Nist,