Facts: The Plaintiff, Zelma Mitchell was terminated from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, on June 4, 1974. The termination was the result of alleged misconduct. On June 12, 1974, Ms Mitchell, applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied by the Unemployment Security Commission deputy. This disqualified Ms. Mitchell from seven weeks of benefits pursuant to 59-9-6(E) N.M.S.A 1953. Ms. Mitchell filed an appealed July 24, 1974, which the Appeal Tribunal overturned the Deputy’s decision and reinstated these benefits to Ms. Mitchell on August 28, 1974.
Robin’s Wood, Inc identified Anthony Monforte as its employee who did the actual painting of the steps. The property owners also alluded to the fact that they would contact Montforte and provide diligent attempts to have him appear in court. Court hearings were reset twice due to failure of producing Monforte or a representative in court. This occurred even after The Supreme Court ordered they provide someone within 30 days. On August 18, 2004, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's answer based upon the defendant's failure to produce a representative.
Chapter 15 Problem 10 Page 411 Was the cancellation clause unconscionable? Within this court case, the purchaser who is Gantos, gave a buy-out order for the seller Gianni Sport. So, this buy-out order was aimed towards the women's holiday apparel that should had been sent out and received by October 10, 1980 to its purchaser (Mallor, et al., 2007). This buy-out order was granted around June of 1980. At the end of September 1980, the purchaser; Gantos decides to cancel this purchase order and it was said that this order had been done sooner than this delivery of the merchandise (Mallor, et al., 2007).
Issue: Whether Block is liable or not for any acts or omissions after 31 December 1976, which is the day the law firm was dissolved. Decision: The court found that dissolution of the law firm was ineffective to terminate the obligations between their clients. Reasoning: On 31 December 1976, the partnership of the law firm was dissolve by mutual agreement. This basically means the beginning of the winding up
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
This article was found in the courier mail on May 17 2012 and is titled School ‘failed to me into law school’, written by Benjamin Preiss. A former Geelong Grammar Student is suing the school after failing her exams. The former student bordered the school in 2008 and 2009. While being enrolled she received a number of internal suspensions and was an unorganised student. As well as being unorganised she was caught skipping classes a number of times.
Mr Birling refused and fired her. He fired a young girl for wanting three more shillings; three shillings that Mr Birling could easily spare. She was fired because of Mr Birling’s greed. Mr Birling’s action started the chain of events that was to follow. Sheila Birling, Arthur Birling’s daughter, was the next person to meet Eva Smith.
Ms. Attired applied for unemployment compensation benefits in July 2010. Her claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation. Issue Whether Ms. Natalie Attired has been wrongfully denied unemployment compensation by the New Mexico Employment Security based because she was terminated by her employer at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie for “misconduct” due to her refusal to remove a
The supervisor misplaced the paperwork stating he completed treatment, but recalls that he did in fact complete training. After investigation by the Department of Human Services, the nursing home was found to be in violation of several regulations. The violations included failure to properly train personnel, failure to follow in a timely manner the procedures for an intoxicated employee, failure to have a licensed nurse on duty at the time of the incident, and failure to notify the next of kin or the physician. Zelda Rodebush had sued New Horizon with negligence in hiring practices and supervision of employees; and sued the aide for intentional infliction of physical injury. New Horizon’s defense was that the aide's action of slapping Rodebush was against the nursing home's policy and had not been suggested as a method of blocking the combativeness of an Alzheimer's patient.
Both were wrongfully terminated for those legitimate complaints. In each case a judge ruled that the termination was wrongful due to legitimate safety concerns, however both still have negative marks on their files in the background screening firm USIS and their Drive-A-Check (DAC)division. Even after speaking with a DAC representative, it is unclear whether Mr. Carter or Mr. Griffith will ever have the negative remarks removed from their records. In 2001 Ingrid Morales was fired from her job as a makeup artist at Saks Fifth Avenue. After she was listed with USIS as having "unauthorized taking of merchandise” on her record, she sued the screening firm.