Legal Memo Sara Thompson Kaplan University Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing PA205 Prof Heather Valdes To: Attorney Valdes From: Paralegal Sara Thompson Date: 7/18/2015 Re: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct. Statement of Facts: Natalie Attired was a waitress at Biddys Tea House. In July, 2010 Natalie Attired filed for unemployment benefits in which she was denied for alleged misconduct. In May, 2009 Natalie Attired began employment at Biddy’s Tea house. During her time there she was given work performance evaluations every 3 months.
An employee also can not be fired “at will” for taking family and medical leave, serving in the military, voting, or jury duty. To protect the right to fire at will, employers ask new employees to sign a written statement agreeing that they are employed at will. Usually the “at will” language appears in the application, the contract or offer letter, or an acknowledgment form from the employee
Sylvia Vega Smith, a mother of four children, worked as a wholesaler for BNC and was making commission money hand over fist; $16,000 per month. Sylvia states that some of the underwriters demanded that they receive brides to make the wholesalers loans go through. The bribes ranged from $1,000 to $2,500 for the first ten loans to the next twenty. When Sylvia’s underwriter wanted a bribe, or spinoff, from Sylvia she refused. Upon refusing her files stated missing and the $16,000 commission she was making began to drop, her boss told her if she was not going to fall in line then he “was going to make an example of her to the others” (Hellriegel & Slocum) According to the lawsuit, Coleen e-mailed the Regional Vice President of Operations to tell them that the male wholesaler had tried to bribe
Her doctors confirmed that these medical problems resulted in her being totally disable. Broadspire's (third party company) physicians that represented Eaton reviewed Ms. Evans 2003 records and concluded that she was no longer fully disabled. Ms. Evans was also administered an Evaluation, which concluded that she was capable of performing daily house hold duties, as well as her job in light category of work in an 8 hour period. Later that year, Ms. Evans was sent a benefits cancellation letter from the Broadspire Company. The district court decided in Ms. Evans favors even though both sides had present strong arguments to support their cases.
Mrs. Hill claims she has evidence of Sex Pay Discrimination. Therefore, six months before she retires, she submitted and filed a formal EEOC charge, because of time of retirement she was being paid significantly less than any of her male colleagues. In addition, she said she has evidence that several supervisors had given her poor evaluations because of her sex. What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statue that applies to this case is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Equal Pay Act (Heneman, 2012).
In years past, the production team has only worked Monday through Friday and were not required to work weekends. In this new rotation there will be some days that fall on a religious holy day, (Sunday in this case) and each production worker is required to work this new rotation, including Sundays. Mr. Bowers voluntarily terminated his position before this new policy was implemented. Following his voluntary termination, Mr. Bowers is now claiming a constructive discharge. This is an element of Title VII to help employees protect themselves against termination due to discrimination A constructive discharge is defined as when the working conditions for the employee
Martin on probation until a full scale investigation can be run to verify either the client’s or Mr. Martin’s stories. If the allegations against Mr. Martin are indeed legitimate, then I find that it would be necessary to terminate Mr. Martin’s employment with the agency because of this obvious sexual harassment. “Sexual harassment has been a fixture of the workplace since women first began to work outside the home. Although true epidemiological studies do not exist, large-scale surveys of working women suggest that approximately 1 of every 2 women will be harassed at some point during their academic or working lives” (Fitzgerald,
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL DOCTRINE A COO’s Ethical Decisions Jeanne M. Catalano Strayer University Authors Note This paper was prepared for Leg 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance Taught by Professor Professor A. Weekley Employment at Will Doctrine: A COO’s Tough Decisions Employment at Will is a double edged doctrine that allows both employees and employers to terminate the working relationship. The United States is the only country that recognizes employment at will and basically gives employers reason to “fire employees for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, pg. 46). Over the years there have arisen many exceptions to the Employment at Will doctrine such as public policy, wrongful termination,
Was the dismissal of this at-will employee lawful? Explain. The plaintiff, Murray was an at-will employee, which means that they are not under contract and has the possibility of being discharged from their job for any reason the employer see fit, that does not mean she would get discharged for doing jury duty. Jury duty is a legal duty we all have to face one day in our lives. If someone does not show up for jury
Federal government does not deploy the military along the borders as well as a navy and air force to keep out people who can’t seem to cross the border through established ports and gateways. Until this problem is completely resolved, the rest won’t matter. References Sharp, A., Register, C., & Grimes, P. (2010) ECO 405: Economics of social issues: 2010 custom edition (19th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Unknown Author (Feb 2, 2013) The Economist: Washington learns a new language.