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
After Johnson consulted his supervisor, he hired his first choice, Patti Cruikshank. Zippittelli was convinced her age was the reason for her lack of success of getting the position within the company. Zippittelli had a brief conversation with her supervisor, Anita Benko, about why she felt she was going to be overlooked for the position. Zippittelli told Benko she felt because she was 63 that she was going to be overlooked for the position. Benko made the statement that she would “probably not” get the position (Twomey, (2013), p. 537).
Facts: The Plaintiff, Zelma Mitchell was terminated from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, on June 4, 1974. The termination was the result of alleged misconduct. On June 12, 1974, Ms Mitchell, applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied by the Unemployment Security Commission deputy. This disqualified Ms. Mitchell from seven weeks of benefits pursuant to 59-9-6(E) N.M.S.A 1953. Ms. Mitchell filed an appealed July 24, 1974, which the Appeal Tribunal overturned the Deputy’s decision and reinstated these benefits to Ms. Mitchell on August 28, 1974.
After UPS failed to address Young’s needs, she filed a grievance with EEOC. EEOC supported Young in her lawsuit, which the District Court decided a summary judgment, which UPS requested (Taylor & Koskella, 2014). This judgment was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Currently, the United States of the Supreme Court is deliberating over the case. Meanwhile, EEOC has established new guidelines to employers involving pregnancy accommodations.
(Twomey, 2013). It is illegal for companies to fire employees for declaring their rights under the state and federal antidiscrimination laws. An employee can bring a reprisal claim even if the discrimination claim doesn't work out. (Nolo, 2014). For example, if you fire an employee for complaining that you denied a promotion because of race, you could lose a retaliation lawsuit even if a judge or jury finds that your promotion decision was not discriminatory.
For over a year Lester abused Lillian. When Lillian told Lester she wanted out of the relationship, Lester told her to pack up and leave. ISSUES (1) Will a court grant a Temporary Restraining Order against Lester for the protection of our client, prior to divorce and child custody hearings? (2) Is the relationship between Lillian and Lester considered a marriage in which a divorce, division of property, and child support can be granted? (3) Will the court grant Lillian child support for her four children, even though she is not certain that Lester is the children’s father?
Memorandum To: Mr. Thomas Gordon, CEO From: HR Manager Date: [ 4/4/2013 ] Re: Constructive Discharge Claim Mr. Gordon, I have researched the information regarding the constructive discharge claim by former employee Mr. Jones. Here are my findings. Mr. Jones has filed a lawsuit against our company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge. The lawsuit was filed after the plant employees schedule was changed to accommodate our company growth. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_discharge, In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge, occurs when employees resign because their employer's behavior has become so intolerable or heinous or made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign.
Once approved age discrimination must be tried under Title VII provisions, which must “substitute the word age, for the words race, color, religion, sex or national origin” (Twomey, 2010, pg. 535). It must also demonstrate that 1) the plaintiff is within the protected age class in this case being over forty. Ms. Zippittelli was age 63 years of age. 2) The plaintiff was qualified for the position at the issue of these proceedings.
Nichelle Langford BSHS/322 Client Rec Paper: Retain, Refer, or Release 1 Dec 11 – 30 Jan 12 Case Study 1 Location: Family Support Services Center Staff member: Tom Martin * Demographics * Age: 32 * Gender: Male * Marital status: Divorced * Race or ethnicity: Caucasian * Years with agency: 4 * Staff member history and current assessment * Employed as an individual counselor for adult clients * Considered an adequate, but not outstanding, counselor * Two previous client complaints that could not be substantiated * A review of Tom’s previous case files shows four female clients who terminated counseling with no explanation * Female client of
The medical staff nurse pleaded guilty to one count of wrongful disclosure of individual health information for personal gain. The case is currently awaiting a trial, but the nurse will be penalized for violating HIPAA. The argument found in this article was the nurse put the whole clinic in jeopardy. The physician stated there are consequences and made staff aware of the consequences of violating patient privacy. The solution was terminating the employee and providing briefing staff members on HIPAA laws and regulations.