On January 16, 1976, the District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered reinstatement of the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. Issue: The issue of this case is whether Mrs., Mitchell’s actions had constituted misconduct to which caused her to disqualify from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 Rule: “Misconduct” is a term that is has not been defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico has adopted Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”.
When Pat was hired she was given an employee personnel manual. The employee manual implies the existence of a contract. In addition, the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/ Corrective Action Plan stated that (“If the job performance of an employee is unsatisfactory, the employee will be notified of the deficiency and placed on a Corrective Action Plan. If the employee performance does not improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, termination will follow”). That corrective action limits Newcorp freedom to fire Pat at will.
My recommendation is to mediate the charge, to talk the charge out with the EEOC representative. According to Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are certain elements for employment practices to be considered unlawful. Section 2000e-2 states for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or adversely affect his status as an employee, because of that individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is an unlawful employment practice (Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 2013). The law requires an employer to make reasonable adjustments such as flexible scheduling so that an employee would be allowed to practice his religion. Based on the new work schedule, an allowance is made for employees to practice their religion.
If the claim cannot be resolved then a submission to a court is made. “An application may indeed complain of both unfair dismissal and unlawful termination. This is generally made to either the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia” (Stewart 2007, p.312). Stewart (2007, p.442) suggests that once an employee raises one of the reasons for the termination, the onus is forced upon the employer to establish that the employment was not terminated for that particular reason, or for any reasons including that particular reason. As outlined in K. Piggin v MCK Pacific Pty Ltd t/a Regency and Collins Showerscreens 2002 case in determining, for the purposes of the arbitration, whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must have regard to whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the capacity or conduct of the employee or to the operational requirements of the employer's undertaking, establishment or service; and whether the employee was notified of that reason and given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or
Kelly wishes to sue the theatre for its failure to maintain the bathroom in a safe condition. On what theory or theories, if any, can Kelly recover from movie theatre? Discuss. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Kelly v. Movie Theatre Negligence Negligence requires a showing that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages. Special Duty – Land Occupier - Invitee A special duty arises in circumstances involving a land occupier.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially reversed the lower court, agreeing with AT&T that Pallas gave impermissible retroactive effect to the PDA. The court reversed and ruled in favor of the employees, avoiding the retroactivity problem by holding that the PDA applies to the actual calculation of pension and retirement benefits regardless of when the leave itself was taken. Because AT&T performed this calculation after the PDA had gone into effect, the denial of benefits violated Title VII. Issue * Does the Pregnancy Disability Act of 1978 (“PDA”) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, apply retroactively, and therefore, does an employer violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to restore service credits to female employees who took pregnancy leaves prior to Congress’ enactment of the
Brat Simpson and Arty Dodger case. However, there is a similar case in terms of the damages being sought, the Hudson's Bay Company v. David James White case. In this case, the Hudson's Bay Company sued Mr. White seeking punitive damages and damages for the surveillance, investigation and apprehension of Mr. White arising out of his shoplifting activity. In the result, the plaintiff was awarded "…judgment for trespass against the defendant in the nominal $300.00. The judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case awarded the plaintiff damages for surveillance and investigation; this is similar to what is being sought in the Northland Corp v. Brat Simpson, Arty Dodger case, the action against the defendants is for the amount of $750.00 for the “cost of security, prorated between offenders caught shoplifting within the store and the amount owing remains a just debt improperly withheld by the Defendants.” The only reason the judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case gave for awarding the damages was that, "…the case cries out for an award of punitive damages”.
The risk manager said she would investigate further. Eight months later, the radiologist, the hospital and family physician were sued. The issue of breach of patient confidentiality was investigated. This disclosed that shortly after his discharge, the patient was approached by a colleague who expressed sympathy about his HIV status. The patient knew this colleague worked at the hospital.
In the United States, the laws that govern the execution of contracts state that all competent parties of a contractual agreement be held liable for negligence or failure to uphold their contractual obligations. This is true for agreements that are made verbally, or through express warranty as well as written contracts. In some states, advertisements may be considered a form of express warranty. In the case of Transamerica Oil Corporation v. Lynes, Transamerica Oil Corporation was awarded damages for breach of express warranty based on the failure of production injection packers purchased from Lynes; the case was reversed and remanded upon appeal. An express warranty can be looked at as a type of contract, and can hold up in a court of law in the same manner.
When you retire to the jury room, you will be asked two questions. First, did the negligence of either R.C. Brahman or Mahal Amrit proximately cause the occurrence in question? If you answer yes, then you will be asked to find the percentage of responsibility attributable to the negligent party. Remember, the occurrence in question is the damage to the bull, not the wreck between Kelly Hereford and Mrs. Amrit.