Memorandum To: John Doe: CEO CC: Legal Department From: Elementary Division Manager Date: [ 4/27/2014 ] Re: EMPLOYEE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CASE Issue: We have received notice from the company attorney stating the plaintiff, a former employee, has filed a case against the company, The Toy Box, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on the grounds of constructive discharge based on conflicting scheduling between work and religion. Despite the plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily remove himself from the company, The Toy Box could be found legally responsible for all lost wages to the plaintiff. The company may also be legally liable to compensate for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering as
Intentional Tort M230/HSC2641 October 20, 2013 Robert Feightner Intentional Tort Intentional tort is a deliberate or premeditated injury that is inflicted on one person by another individual. It can be separated into six categories, which are assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation of character, fraud, and invasion of privacy. A person who is suffering from those injuries whether it is mental or physical injuries can file for a tort case, which may result in monetary damages. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff duty of care, caused their injuries, to include, failed to provide proper standard of care (Pearson Education, 2010). An example of intentional tort under the category battery
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ATHENS- CLARKE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA Carl Ameche (individually & guardian), Zoe Ameche (individually & guardian), And Zachary Ameche, ) (A minor by his parents and guardians) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 015496893 ) ) Margie Congden and ) Leroy Congden d/b/a ) Maple Meadows Campground ) Defendants. ) Plaintiff Demand Trial by Jury. COMPLAINT FOR NEGELIGENCE Plaintiff alleges that: 1. Plaintiff Carl Ameche resides at 2222 2nd St. Thorp, Ohio 10000, Meade County.
Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data.
Current California Tort Law Dubbed by Prosser the "little brother of conversion," the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property "not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered." (Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed.1984) § 14, pp. 85-86.) Though not amounting to conversion, the defendant's interference must, to be actionable, have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff's rights in it. Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury."
Trexel Case 1) What criteria should you use to evaluate the projects at Trexel? Which project (molded structural foam, injection molding, blow molding, PVC extrusions, or meat trays and food packaging) should Bernstein recommended to the board? Why? The project at Trexel should be evaluated through different criteria, like: • Company’s history: Since Bernstein joined to the Trexel Team, he has developed two strategies: the first one was based on partnership deals and the second one on internal development of specific products. Both strategies failed, therefore it is necessary to analyze what were their mistakes.
Corporate Governance and Ethical Responsibility Student Name Date: 6/4/2012 Introduction In this analysis paper i'll be explaining what Dr. DoRight of Universal Human Care Hospital can manage when he discovers that patients inside the hospital are dying as a results of a spread of illegal procedures by doctors and nurses and negligent supervision and oversight on their half. I'll analyze the rights of staff to health and safety within the work place. i'll address the duty of loyalty, and conflicts of interest between internal and external stakeholders. i'll additionally discuss the moral duties to report illegal procedures, along side the deontology and utilitarianism principles. The Universal Human Care Hospital has
An incident form is split into different sections these are:- 1a Patient or staff details, this is the person affected by the incident and will contain their name, address, date of birth and if staff job title and division. 1b- Status of patient, whether they are an inpatient or outpatient. 2- Any other person that witnessed the incident or was involved. 3- Details of who who is filing in the report form. 4-Location of incident for example ward and room number.
It is also in place that employers must report deaths. RIDDOR is in place for “work related” incidents to be reported. The type of injuries that need to be reported are – • The death of any person (Regulation 6) • Specified Injuries to workers (Regulation 4) • Injuries to workers which result in their incapacitation for more than 7 days(Regulation 4) • Injuries to non-workers which result in them being taken directly to hospital for treatment, or specified injuries to non-workers which occur on hospital premises. (Regulation 5) COSSH 1994 COSSH is control of substances hazardous to health. COSSH requires employees to carry out the correct risk assessments and to ensure that employees are aware of the hazards.
(a) In jurisdictions following the Ultramares doctrine, under what conditions can auditors be held liable under common law to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries? (b) How do jurisdictions that follow the legal precedent inherent in the Rusch Factors case differ from jurisdictions following Ultramares? (a) Under Ultramares dorctrine, ordinary negligence is insufficient for liability to third parties because the lack of privity of contract between the third party and the auditor unless the third party is a primary beneficiary, However, if the auditor had been grossly negligence and committed constructively fraud or fraud during his or her audit, he or she could be held liable to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries. In Phar-Mor case, Coopers & Lybrand’s Attorneys argued that Coopers & Lybrand’s had only been ordinary negligence and tried to convince the jury that Coopers & Lybrand’s could not discover the fraud because Phar-Mor’s management was involved in that massive fraud and worked together to hide evidence. In addition, the investors and creditors of Phar-Mor did not have a written agreement with the auditor, Coopers & Lybrand’s, defining Coopers & Lybrand’s duty.