Assignment #1Davis v. County Commissioners of Dona-Ana Davis v. County Commissioners of Dona-Ana Shunovia Crenshaw Instructor: Dr. Jean Gordon Business Employment Law HRM510 Date 4/22/2012 Abstract Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona-Ana was sued by a female complaining that they were liable for the abuse she received by Mr. Herrera. Mr. Herrera was hired by Mesilla Valley Hospital under the assumption that he was an outstanding person and they had received an exemplary report from his previous employer. Because of the reference they received they hired him. He resigned from the other job because he was accused of sexually abusing a female inmate while under his care. The plaintiff is suing because she feels that the detention center is liable for the actions of Mr. Herrera.
He also made sexual innuendoes about women employees’ clothing. When Harris complained to Hardy about this conduct in mid-August of 1987, he claimed he was only joking, apologized, and promised to stop. But when Harris was arranging a deal with a client in early September Hardy asked her, in front of other employees, if she had promised to have sex with the client. Harris collected her paycheck, quit, and filed suit. The issue in Harris was whether plaintiffs in a hostile environment case under Title VII had to prove psychological injury in order to prevail.
Held: 1. The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials. Although the value in the right of petition as an important aspect of self-government is beyond question, it does not follow that the Framers of the First Amendment believed that the Petition Clause provided absolute immunity from damages for libel. In 1845 this Court, after reviewing the common law, held in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered.
In Clayman vs Obama, Judge Richard echoed that surveillance and collection of telephony data by NSA without the knowledge of the general public was against the spirit of the constitution of America. He said that the right to privacy is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the state. The right should not be taken away from the persons by the state. In another ruling ten days after the first one, J. William in ACLU vs Clapper arrived at a diametrically opposite decision with a different reasoning. The judge appreciated the right to privacy as envisioned under the constitution but argued that the value of intelligence outweighed the right.
No other persons were within hearing distance of the incident. The questions needing to be answered are, If Garcia sues Belk’s, under what theory or theories of law will he bring suit and what rules of law will he use to help him win? What arguments and rules of law will Belk’s use to defend itself and who will win. Should Garcia choose to sue the Belk Corporation he may do so using the Defamation of Character/Slander theory. The case of Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) examines a case of defamation of character by the defendant in which the accused was said to have destroyed Mr. Davis’s name and character by unlawfully soliciting that he was a prior shoplifter to the community when Mr. Davis had in fact been cleared of the charges prior to the solicitation.
Case: Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352, 123 A.2d 316 Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1956, opinion by Delaplaine. Judicial History: This suit was brought in the Superior Court of Baltimore City by Hilda Louise Boehm against Louis Gail Fiege to recover for breach of a contract to pay the expenses incident to the birth of his bastard child and to provide for its support upon condition that she would refrain from prosecuting him for bastardy. Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Facts: Plaintiff alleged in her declaration substantially as follows: (1) that early in 1951 defendant had sexual intercourse with her although she was unmarried, and as a result thereof she became pregnant, and defendant acknowledged that he was responsible for her pregnancy; (2) that on September 29, 1951, she gave birth to a female child; that defendant is the father of the child; and that he acknowledged on many occasions that he is its father; (3) that before the child was born, defendant agreed to pay all her medical and miscellaneous expenses and to compensate her for the loss of her salary caused by the child's birth, and also to pay her ten dollars per week for its support until it reached the age of 21, upon condition that she would not institute bastardy proceedings against him as long as he made the payments in accordance with the agreement; (4) that she placed the child for adoption on July 13, 1954, and she claimed the following sums: Union Memorial Hospital, $ 110; Florence Crittenton Home, $ 100; Dr. George Merrill, her physician, $ 50; medicines, $ 70.35; miscellaneous expenses, $ 20.45; loss of earnings for 26 weeks, $ 1,105; support of the child, $ 1,440; total, $ 2,895.80; and (5) that defendant paid her only $ 480, and she demanded that he pay her the further sum of $ 2,415.80, the balance due under the agreement, but he
Brook Antonio GEC 100/ Sharon Corbin W3D1 Article Analysis My first article is titled "Jay-z can fight racial profiling in retail." It's an article written from a commentary stand point by Roxanne Jones; former ESPN president, and co-author of "Say It Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete." Roxanne Jones is expressing her opinions related to rapper Jay-Z's affiliation to the luxury store Barney's. Barney's is in the middle of a racial profiling lawsuit. Roxanne states, “two Barney’s customers, Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, said last week that they were racially profiled and detained by police after making expensive purchases."
This was her first misstep. Bogle takes it as a fact that all her interviewees told the truth and also that no one would join the culture by choice. The men and women could have lied in order to seem more respectable in the eyes of Bogle, their elder and a psychologist. For example, some women may have said that peer pressure was their reason to join simply because they felt that Bogle would have seen them as a “slut” if they had actually wanted to participate in the hook-up culture. Secondly, she also assumed that all students cared enough about others’ opinions that they would have been swayed by the pressure placed upon them.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
Many people would argue that the blame for her misfortune should solely lay on Lord Illingworth, who, it is obvious to the audience, used her for his own pleasure and satisfaction, abusing her love and trust. From this, it is easy to infer that Wilde himself felt very strongly about the idea of women ‘falling from grace’, not that they have fallen, but about the double standard that came with it; that it was unjust that women should be fully blamed and looked down on by society for being ‘fallen’ when no blame lay with the men who brought about their fall, an attitude that was very uncommon to have to have at the time, espeicially for a