Ryan LaMar MGMT597 – Course Project Case #47.6 This case involves a lawsuit between Marsha Hamilton and Andrea Morris. Hamilton is the plaintiff in this case and Morris is the defendant. Hamilton is suing Morris for damages because Morris misplaced Hamilton’s watch. Both parties seem as though they may have had a few too many alcoholic beverages at the party since Hamilton had to use the bathroom because she began feeling sick and Morris can’t recall what she did with the watch. The consumption of alcoholic beverages shouldn’t have any bearing toward who wins this case, but it is something to note.
The victim was harassed by co-workers and obviously quite embarrassed. The victim pressed charges against both Medlantic and Tijuana Goldring. Medlantic was found guilty for breach of confidential relationship and was made to pay the victim two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. However, Tijuana was not found guilty of invasion of privacy because the disclosure was not within the scope of Goldring’s employment with WHC. Medlantic filed a motion for judgment arguing that Doe’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Coleen and five other female employees filed a wrongful termination and sexual harassment lawsuit against BNC when the work environment turned hostile in 2005. According to the lawsuit Coleen was starting to question loans a certain male wholesaler was submitting to her. Upon Coleen evaluating the loan information, she noticed some of the numbers (salaries and value of homes) did not look right. When Coleen mentioned this to the male wholesaler, he in turn told her not to worry about and then began to bribe Coleen so that she would let the loans be accepted. Sylvia Vega Smith, a mother of four children, worked as a wholesaler for BNC and was making commission money hand over fist; $16,000 per month.
Unfortunately, in September of that same year he began to harass her again while she was trying to make a sales agreement with a customer, in which he suggested Ms. Harris offered the customer sex in exchange for the sale. Ms. Harris then collected her last check on October 1, 1987 and promptly left the company, at which time she filed a lawsuit against Forklift Systems Inc. stating her Title VII Civil Rights had been violated by the abusive work environment she endured there, based on her gender. The United States Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled this to be a ‘close’ case, but ruled in favor of the defendant because they believed that while Mr. Hardy’s conduct would offend any reasonable woman worker, it would not have interfered with the persons work
Assignment #5 – Dillon v. Champion Jogbra Anthony Burgs June 16, 2013 Business Employment Law - HRM 510 Dr. Zelphia A. Brown, SPHR, Instructor Assignment #5 – Dillon v. Champion Jogbra 1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon, an employee with Champion Jogbra, accused her former employer of wrongful termination. She believed the company breached the implied contract and terminated services without abiding by its progressive discipline policy as outlined in the company handbook.
She then appealed to the US Supreme Court, who decided that what the police had done was unconstitutionally wrong. They violated Dollree’s rights and searched her home without a proper search warrant. “The police tactics were deemed
There was a little scuffle between Ms. Mapp and the officers, and Ms. Mapp proclaimed that they had injured her during this time of rough handling. Later, her attorney eventually arrived on the scene, but was not allowed to enter the house or converse with his client (Thomson Reuters, 2012). Ms. Mapp had many arguments that were in her favor. Primarily, she had asked to see a search warrant, which only generated a piece of paper that she was not allowed to read. But even before this the officers had forcefully gained entry into the hallway without giving adequate time for her
The EEOC stresses that Mitsubishi “creat[ed] and tolerat[ed] a sexually hostile and abusive work environment. The magnitude and scope of sexual and sex-based harassment at Mitsubishi, and the degree of managerial complicity therein, are unprecedented” (Cray 1). They want to prove that the company’s cultural ethos encouraged U.S. managers to “engage in a pattern and practice of sex-based discrimination which poisoned the atmosphere of employment” (Cray 1). Mitsubishi, however, argued that the harassing incidents were isolated and not part of a “pattern and practice” for which the company should be held liable (Cray 1). Mitsubishi stated that “the EEOC inaccurately portrays the company as legally liable for parties involving employees during off hours not at the plant” (Cray 2).
Wal-Mart workers filed 30 counts of unfair labor practice with the National labor Relations Board (NLRB). The representations alleged “widespread and egregious attempts by Wal-Mart to silence e workers who have been calling for a change of course at the company” (Our Wal-Mart files over 30 New Counts of Unfair Labor Practices Against Wal-Mart for Attempts to Silence Associates, 2013). These example show that of a US organizations that still continue to abuse labor practices both within our country as well as internationally. Although at times these companies have faced tarnished images, these businesses continue to reap profits while executives and stock holders swim in the benefits. Some common items that we buy that are made in sweatshops are shoes, clothes, coffee, and
As the sole provider in your household, your family depends on you. What do you do? I would warn everybody that has bought the formula that the formula is contaminated and that they are not to use the formula anymore and if I do not tell the people about the formula the people will continue to use the formula and their babies will be sick and they still can sue us for that because we knew about the situation and we just could have just started telling them when we found out that the formula was contaminated and avoid getting sued either way. After reviewing my answers to both questions I did not use similar answers or anything my conclusion on both my morals is that you should try to save as many people as possible and let people know if there is any type of contamination going on with the food or formula that has been bought from a