In the case of Janet leaving BUGusa, Inc. to work for WIRETIME, INC. the company has committed tortious interference. Tortious interference is when a party persuades and induces another to breach their contract. WIRETIME, Inc. used an 10% increase in wages and a $5,000 signing bonus as leverage to lure Janet away from BUGusa, Inc. to work for them. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. Since Walter took Steven into a soundproof room for six hours and threatened to hurt him if he did not divulge information, Walter committed false imprisonment.
When this happens, he continues, they are given a 24-hour respite to come to their senses and burn the book before their coworkers must do so for them. Montag becomes paranoid that Beatty knows that he has stolen not only one, but nearly 20 books over the course of his career. He feels compelled to tell Millie his secret and shows her his collection. Millie panics, insisting that they burn the books. Before the issue is resolved, someone comes to the door, prompting terror in both Montag and Millie.
Bobby (Nancy's boyfriend) was especail shaken up and said he would never love another woman ever agian. During the climax of the novel Agent Dewey struggles to find out who the killers are and narrows it down to the diffters of our story Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. Agent Dewey has a hard time finding Dick and Perry. Turns out ever since the murder they had been out trying to find work and made the mistake of going back to Kanas City. Shortly after leaving Kanas City Dick and Perry were aressted and sent in for questioning.
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Unit 5 Assignment Case Name: Rodman v. New Mexico Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts: Plaintiff employee worked as a unit secretary for defendant employer for nearly eight years. In the course of her employment she was given “three corrective action” notices because she was receiving an inordinate amount of personal telephone calls and visitors at her work station. She was ultimately terminated and applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied. The court decided that due to a “totality of circumstances,” this series of incidents constituted misconduct sufficient to disqualify the plaintiff from receiving benefits.
A panic attack during a May 2001 meeting alerted his superiors to his condition. The disease also caused him to lose motor control in his right hand. After a leave of absence, Wilson's physician said he was able to continue performing the functions of his job with no restrictions, but a little more than a year later, Wilson was laid off. Wilson sued, alleging his firing was a pretext for discrimination based on a perception that he was disabled. The District Court found that company management regarded Wilson as disabled when in fact he was not and terminated him as a result of his perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This resulted in Junge falling over and striking her head on the concrete while her daughter Ms. Kaminiski fell on top of her due to her walker tipping over because of the stuck wheel in the sidewalk. Junge was helped by two Wheeling employees, a paramedic, and security guard. Junge did not require emergency medical care and return home to Pennsylvainia. That evening in Pennsylvanaia Junge started to to feel sore and disoriented and her Ms. Kaminski rushed her to the hospital after she found her in servere pain. She was admitted into the hospital with congestive heart failure and injuries due to her fall in West Virginia.
Facts In August 1992, Elizabeth Stroot and a roommate, Joletta Watson, moved into an apartment on the third floor of Haverford Place. (Case Law) While living in this apartment with Watson, Stroot immediately discovered mold around the windows and bathroom. Upon this discovery, Stroot attempted to remove the mold with bleach, however, the mold keep returning. In addition to the mold, Stroot also discovered leaks in her bedroom ceiling and in the kitchen and bathroom sinks. About a year later, in September 1993, Stroot’s roommate, Watson, moved out and Stroot moved into a one bedroom apartment in a different building within Haverford Place.
Negotiations on a new contract During the two year gap the company found that the poor oven quality was on a rise and felt that the testers weren’t doing their job. The company should have provided more training. The job performance is an issue that HR professionals/managers should have tackled to change the productivity of the employee. It is obvious there weren’t any documentation noted on the testers evaluation on how well they are performing on the job. Instead of renewing the contract the issue of productivity and quality should have been put on the table.
The case of Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) examines a case of defamation of character by the defendant in which the accused was said to have destroyed Mr. Davis’s name and character by unlawfully soliciting that he was a prior shoplifter to the community when Mr. Davis had in fact been cleared of the charges prior to the solicitation. The Belk Corporation in return could claim procedural due process of the law considering as stated in the case, there were no other witnesses aside for the three involved. Belk’s could claim they had no knowledge of the alleged crime as a corporation and lay the blame on Joan as an individual rather than as an employee of the Belk Corporation. Should the Belk Corporation successfully accomplish this task, Joan would not have had enough probable cause against Garcia to successfully win this case. Joan’s mere suspicion of Garcia is not enough to constitute probable cause.
Hooters of America, Incorporated v. Annette R. Phillips Facts Annette R. Phillips, an employee at Hooters restaurant in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, quit after Gerald Brooks, a Hooters official and brother of the Hooters of Myrtle Beach primary owner, purportedly sexually harassed her by “grabbing and slapping her buttocks” in June of 1996.Phillips quit her job after she petitioned her manager for help and was told to “let it go.” Shortly after, Phillips threatened to sue Hooters in court, claiming that her Title VII rights had been violated. Hooters responded that she was required to submit her claims to arbitration due to the fact that prior to quitting she had signed an arbitration agreement, composed by Hooters, which specified the proceedings in regard to Title VII claims. In 1994, Hooters engineered an alternative dispute resolution program; this program entailed the agreement that both Hooters and the employees arbitrate employment related disputes according to the rules put forth by Hooters. Phillips signed the agreement on November 25, 1994 and again in April of 1995. However, Phillips was never provided with a copy of the rules and procedures for arbitration proclaimed by Hooters.