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
The contract was eventually terminated when MSC failed to make payments. BSC said they based pulling out of the contract by the fact that they declared bankruptcy. The West Federal Reporter stated that on October 17th that the government terminated the contract since MSC failed to compensate BSC. 3. Legal issues presented before Court: 1.
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., The Plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter sued her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for alleging illegal pay discrimination towards her. Before filing suit, Ledbetter filed a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as needed under Title VII, and therefore started the statutory period of her suit to 180 days before she filed the complaint with the Commission. The argument in favor of the trial was that based on Title VII Goodyear paid her a discriminatorily low salary due to her sex. It was argued that comparing her salary with those of the male sex, whom had the same position and time at the company, Ms. Ledbetter was paid 40% less than the highest earning male, and 15% from the lowest paid male. Goodyear’s argument against the case was the since the statutory period was only 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could not file a lawsuit about past pay checks, but only those falling under those 180 days.
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.
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 NM 575, 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: June 4, 1974, Zelma Mitchell was terminated for misconduct from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. June 12, 1974, Zelma Mitchell applied from unemployment benefits and was not granted it because of her termination for misconduct. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal and the Appeal Tribunal reversed the decision and was reinstated for benefits on August 28, 1974. Lovington appealed the Tribunal's decision and again the decision was reversed and Mrs. Mitchell was disqualified. Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari and the District Court reversed and reinstated benefits to Mrs. Mitchell on January 16, 1976. Issue: Zelma Mitchell, the petitioner's actions constituted misconduct so to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits.
She was admitted into the hospital with congestive heart failure and injuries due to her fall in West Virginia. The plantiff filed a suit against Wheeling Gaming saying that they were responsible for damages of $80,000.00 for physical and mental injuries due to neglecting to maintain the walkways for handicap access to the casino. ISSUE: May the court exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant? DECISION: The Court determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. The court decided that it was not going to grant the defendants dismissal of the case and they were just going to transfer this action to the Northern District of West Virginia.
Case Questions Wal-Mart v. Dukes 1. Current and former Wal-Mart employees sought judgment against the company for injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and back pay, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees, because of Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title VII. The US Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling finding that certification of the class was not consistent with Rule 23(a), and the back pay claims were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2). (1) Under Rule 23(a), plaintiffs cannot prove "common questions of law or fact." Plaintiffs wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once, but there was no "significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination."
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).
Opinion(s) of the Court Delivered Joseph E. Spruill, Jr., Judge Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court that Marrill was not eligible for an elective share of Dorothy’s augmented estate. 3. Facts Dorothy and Marrill were married in July 1988. Dorothy experienced a multiple amount of illnesses throughout her marriage. Dorothy also experience different types of abuse from her husband.
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.