Week 3 Case Study: Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. HRMG 5700 – Employment Law Week 3 Case Study: Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Pam Huber, while working for Wal-Mart as dry grocery order filler, sustained a permanent injury to her right arm and hand and could no longer perform the essential job functions. When she asked to be reassigned to a router position as a reasonable accommodation, she was required to compete with other applicants for this position, and after not being hired for this position and being placed in a maintenance position she filed suit under the ADA. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory policy of hiring the most qualified applicant for all job vacancies and therefore was not required to reassign Huber to the router position. Huber filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted Huber’s motion and Wal-Mart appealed. The issue before the court was whether “an employer has an obligation to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant equivalent position when the employer has an already established policy to hire or promote the most qualified to the position” (Twomey, 2013, p. 566).
The appellate court reversed the trail court’s ruling that Winkle was entitled to the profit – sharing bonus. The court held the opinion that since Winkle has not been paid his salary and bonus, therefore the contract had not been executed. “Section 1698 of the Civil Code provides: A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’… “Section 1698 has a dual operation. On the one hand it invalidates oral contracts of modification that are unexecuted, and on the other hand it validates executed agreements that might otherwise fail for lack of consideration...”(668 P 2d
| Dolan v. United States Postal Service | United States Supreme Court | | | DOLAN v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE The plaintiff, Barbara Dolan was allegedly injured by tripping over packages, letters, and periodicals that were negligently placed on her porch by a United States Postal Service employee. After exhausting her administrative remedies, Dolan filed a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the U.S. District court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 2004). The United States Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction citing the statute covering the Federal Torts Claim Act (28 U.S.C. S 2680(b). This Act provides a limited waiver of the federal government’s (or in this case the USPS) sovereign immunity when the employees are negligent within the scope of their employment.
The employer’s facility is licensed as residential care facility, which omits it from Nursing Home Care Act. The second law “Residential Care Act” is governing living conditions such as lighting, temperature limits, ventilation, and other physical conditions. The employer argued that this act was not mentioned in district court so it should not apply and also the language was very general and not specific enough to rise to the level of a clear statement of public policy. The third law is “Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Act”, which makes stealing a controlled substance a criminal offense, but due to lack of clear and specific argument it was not applicable to discharge case. Broom and Miller’s appeal was not able establish how these laws obligates to their discharge case.
Her death shook the nation. Patsy Ramsey (Jonbenet's mother) discovered her young daughter was missing when she found a two and half page ransom note demanding $118,000.00 if they ever wanted to see their daughter alive again. The note also stated that the Ramsey's were to not contact the police. Patsy defied the instructions and contacted the police and family members. The police arrived and conducted a search which started at the house.
In this case the court ruled that changing an employee’s work hours does not constitute constructive discharge under Title VII. In this case we have to determine if the employee ever asked us for a schedule accommodation. The opinion of the court may differ from this case if our employee had brought this concern to our attention and we did not offer an accommodation. Looking further into Title VII an employer may be guilty of discriminating against religious beliefs or practices unless a reasonable accommodation could be reached without undue hardship on our business. If the employee were to pursue a prima facie case they would have to prove three things to win in court: they have a bona fide religious belief that is in conflict
Nabeel Basit Final Draft—PPP&L Journal Alford v. Greene—How an Unreasonable Seizure Led To an Unreasonable Interview I. Introduction Alford v. Greene dealt with the unconstitutional seizure of a young girl. In Alford v. Greene and Greene v. Camreta (which was consolidated into Alford v. Greene), caseworker Greene and Deputy Sheriff Alford seized a young girl and interrogated her in a private office at her elementary school for two hours. This was done without a warrant, probable cause, or parental consent, because they suspected the mother's husband may have been sexually molesting the girl and her sister. Deputy Alford had a visible firearm during the interview.
Surviving A Trip To Walmart The cat was meowing on the way out the door because her bowl was empty, you just popped the top on your last Pepsi, and the laundry is piling up because you forgot to get detergent last week. What does all this mean? The inevitable trip to Wal-Mart must take place before chaos ensues. Even though we all dread going to this house of madness, it's a job that must be done and careful planning needs to take place for one to survive a trip to Wal-Mart. While it may seem nearly impossible to walk out of Wal-Mart with your sanity intact, it can be done with a little advance preparation.
Personal injury because she sat on baby bear’s chair though she did break it, she still fell and had gotten a back injury. Mental distress because of her harsh serious head aches, she suffered a period of depression because she could not pay any of her medical bills due to the fact she had to go to the hospital and check out her back. The Bears are suing for property dam gage, trespassing, and also mental distress. Property damage because she broken the front door, and baby bear’s chair, which would cost a lot to repair and replace a priceless chair of their ancestors. Trespassing, though she didn’t know it wasn’t her house she still trespassing into their property and broke inside the house as well.
When people in Louisiana heard about this they ransacked their local wal-mart clearing out the shelves complete. Some people gathered up so much grocery's that they where outside packing up their cars for two hours. The saddest part of the whole story is when those individuals realized that the food stamp system had caught the glitch, and they no longer had a unlimited spending amount, they just left their shopping carts that where filled high full of grocery and left the store. All those employees had to gather up all those baskets and restock the shelves and clean up the horrific mess those people left behind. Even though food stamps are meant to help out people, sometimes individuals will just take advantage of