In November of 1998, Lilly Ledbetter retired from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and she filed a suit claiming sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court allowed this case to go to trial at which time Ledbetter sought backed damaged and wages to make up for the raises she did not receive throughout the time of her employment. The jury in the first trial awarded Ledbetter the money she was asking for. As expected, Goodyear appealed this ruling claiming that the charge was not made within the time frame allowed by Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
Jordan retired in 1993 but came back to the league in 1995, no contract was made between Knafel and Jordan after his first retirement. It was not until his second announcement that came in 1998 that Knafel contacted him. She reminded him about their agreement to pay her the 5 million dollars. After Jordan retired he failed to pay Knafel alleging that she was trying to extort 5 million dollars from him. Procedure Jordan filed for a declaratory judgement alleging that Knafel was attemting to extort 5 million dollars from him and even if there was an agreement made it was undenforcable because of fraud and mutual mistake.
Hayden Price 12/4/13 Poli Sci 2040 CASE BRIEF 10: Clinton v. Jones (1997) 1) Clinton v. Jones 2) 520 U.S. 681 3) Paula Corbin Jones, who was an Arkansas state employee, sued President Bill Clinton for sexually harassing her while Clinton was still the Governor of Arkansas. Her lawsuit sought more than half a million dollars in damages. Clinton insisted that the case be stayed, and resumed only after he had left office. He also insisted that Presidents could be sued for neither their official nor their unofficial actions while in office. In 1994 a lower federal court judge postponed the trail indefinitely and this postponement was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
She broke numerous ethical codes and legal laws when she was even associating with M.L. Allegedly Rosalind repaid the loans back to M.L. by August 15, 2008. M.L. allegedly felt threatened by the respondent when she asked the respondent for the repayment of loans.
Goldring was dismissed from the case, and the trial proceeded against just Medlantic. The jury found Medlantic liable for breach of confidential relationship and awarded damages in the amount of $250,000 (Doe, 2003). The jury found against Doe on the invasion of privacy claim because Goldring’s disclosure was not within the scope of Goldring’s employment with Washington Health Center (Doe, 2003). The jury also found that the lawsuit was filed within the one-year limitation periods. This verdict was then reversed by the trial court in favor of Medlantic.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States Lori Johnston Laws 310 Professor Jennifer Stephens DeVry University May 10, 2015 Why was this case important? This case of Heart of Atlanta v. United States is vital in the historical background of America as it highlights the issue of racial separation in the US. It tested the legality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in addition the power of Congress to establish clearing social equality enactment and implement it against private organizations. Title II announced segregation in facilities like inns, motels, restaurants, and so forth to be unlawful. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first endeavor to address an extensive variety of biased practices since the US Supreme Court proclaimed the Reconstruction-period Civil Rights Act of 1875 illegal.
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee passed laws requiring railroads to separate the races. Mississippi and South Carolina already denied the vote to Blacks and many other states were preparing to take the same steps. The 14th amendment plays a viable role in both Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education. While the 13th abolished slavery and the 15th established the right to suffrage, it was the 14th, which supposedly guaranteed civil rights. The requirements of section 1 of the 14th Amendment left much of the jurisdictional issues (intentionally) vague as to the limits of federal and state laws.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed July 26, 1990 as Public Law and became effective on January 26, 1992. The ADA is landmark federal legislation that opens up services and employment opportunities for Americans with disabilities. The law was written to strike a balance between the reasonable housing of citizens' needs and the size of private and public entities to respond. It is not an affirmative action law but is intended to eliminate illegal discrimination for disabled individuals. The ADA recognizes and protects the civil rights of people with disabilities and is modeled after earlier landmark laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and gender.
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Facts: In June of 1958, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, got married in Washington, D.C. They returned back to their home state of Virginia only to be convicted of violating Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law that prohibited interracial marriage. They both pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in jail. The judge suspended those sentences on condition that the Lovings leave Virginia and not return for twenty-five years. Mildred and Richard moved to Washington D.C. and with the help of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) they filled to have the sentence set aside on the ground that it violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
TITLE 9 AND DISCRIMINATION Title 9 and Discrimination Introduction Title IX is an act amended in 1972 to solve the discrimination against people on the basis of sex in higher educational establishments. Similarly, the law also has been used as a tool of tackling segregation and harassment in learning institutions on the basis of sex stereotypes. Basically, the law defines that no person in America shall be excluded from participation in any activity on the basis of gender or be denied the benefits or subjected to segregation under any program of education or activity receiving federal financial support. The law also forbids segregation on the basis of sex in employment or recruitment exercises. However, 1987 amendment of title IX comprehensively