When a case is true at first glance and proceed to trial it is called a prima farce case, and based on the evidence Becket made the burden of proof and if the defendant isn't unable to come up with evidence proving him wrong, the plaintiff shall be awarded. Wheeler cannot claim that it was a business necessity to fire Becket, nor a seniority system or a bona fide qualification- none of these defenses used for this kind of situation could apply to the circumstances. The reason is because the Wheeler and his firm blatantly lack an ethical approach when it comes to Beckett's sexuality. Their negligent behavior resulted in a man who was once their star attorney, losing his job, in turn brought them to court, and won for their malpractices. Despite he was qualified for the position he was working, he was discharged in a questionable manner that raised reasonable belief of discrimination; he wasn't fired due to his lack of duties as they claimed, but the obvious lesions marked on his body.
Tanglewood Case 5 Stanley Root, a shift leader for Tanglwood, alleges he has been repeatedly passed over for promotions despite having record of good performance reviews. He believes that he is being overlooked because he is an African-American. For that reason he has brought suit against Tanglewood based on the theory of disparate impact, which has now turned into a class action. This suit has not only forced them to look to at their hiring practices, but it has made them aware of the costly repercussions (image, reputation, monetary loss) associated with being prove guilty. Tanglewood prides itself in being an inclusive organization.
The burden is on the employer to prove a BFOQ, and it is a difficult burden. The BFOQ defense is available only in cases of discrimination because of: Religion, Sex, National origin, and Age. Although a section in the law states, that Discrimination is OK "in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. As stated above, Hooters and LeVeille Maison’s business depend strongly on the experience offered to their customers. Under the BFOQ, the reason behind why they did not choose to hire Mr. Garcia or Mrs. Cameron, is covered and completely reasonable.
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
Because of his conduct he did not provide her a fair trial in her custody petition. For this reason Schmidt is justified in filing an appeal, outlining the judges behavior, and allowing the court to review her case and give a fair
While Kelly’s belief about the merits of decriminalization is adamant and the piece is well written and supported by her own research, the focus of the essay does not lead the reader to question the call for Spitzer’s resignation and/or impeachment. The effects of decriminalization in other countries and the question of the morality surrounding sex for money leave one wondering about the relevance of the addition of Spitzer’s story. Clearly the emotions of the American public in response to the senator’s indiscretions were founded moreso on the hypocrisy of his actions rather than the actions independently. As a whole, the essay does implore the reader to evaluate the value of legislation criminalizing prostitution and determine that there is proof that this legislation has become antiquated in the common day. Unfortunately, the essay does not address the core of the distress that was felt by the American people during the life of this scandal nor force one to question if illegally purchasing sex for money is sufficient grounds for resignation from political office.
These results are discouraging because they imply discrimination in the evaluation of school and job performance (Berscheid & Walster, 1972; Dipbaze, Fromkin, & Wilback, 1975) as well as in judgments concerning moral or legal transgressions (Dion, 1972; Sigall & Ostrove, 1975). Since this research suggests unfair treatment of people, it is important to examine in detail reports concerning this bias. The most often cited experiment on an attractiveness-induced halo effect was reported by Landy and Sigall (1974). 1A similar version of this article was presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los Angeles, April 1976. Thanks are due to Jan Ault, Lynn
Licensing is supposed to create a boundary in separating people who know how to do the job from people who do not. Young (2002) argues that occupational licensing has many flaws. He stated that it raises prices and does not prove concretely that having a license insures better quality or safety. Also, the requirements usually do not insure “good practice.” The law places more attention to non-licensed practitioners than licensed practitioners who malpractice. Occupational Licensing requires schooling, courses, training, and other obstacles in order for people to practice their specialty.
Equality Opportunity’ in that the burdens of racism can only be overcome by taking race into account. Affirmative action also aims to reflect the racial diversity of the nation, the ‘Equality of Results’, within schools, the firm and the workplace. Despite being mainly supported by Democrats, and rejected by Republicans President Nixon played a significant role in affirmative action by instituting ‘set aside’ policies to reserve a certain percentage for minorities. The main advantage of affirmative action is that is leads to a greater diversity in societies main institutions, arguably this would not be achieved had things been left as they were. It is also argued on the basis of righting those previously wronged, by opening areas of education and employment that would not have previously been available to minorities.
In the civil system of courts the parties are also adverse to each other, however instead of arguing against each other, each party provides the evidence to the judge whom will then ask the questions and from there may decide the outcome of the case. These processes are known as inquisitorial due to the nature of the ‘inquisition’ by the judge. Controversy has arisen as to which system of trial provides society with the favoured ‘justice.’ It has been argued that the adversary system is favoured over the inquisitorial system as the personal biases of a judge in the conduct of a case are less obvious. Many people claim that such a system does not achieve justice, as juries, in particular, can be convinced by the quality of the barristers’ legal arguments, rather than actual evidence. Alternatively, the inquisitorial system may be said to provide better justice in that a judge has a broader range of possibilities to ask wider and deeper questions, and can therefore gather information that the parties did not intend to expose.