Case 20-1 Shoenberger V. Chicago Transit Authority Case Study

Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft.

In the past, Monsanto has had many ethical issues like high performance standards that can cause employees to make unethical and illegal decisions and not owning up to hazards around them. However, Monsanto has been striving to enforce their code of ethics and has spent more time trying to become more socially responsible to the environment. For Monsanto to create an ethical culture, he would have to be proactive in anticipating, planning and acting to avoid potential ethical crisis’ (Thorne, Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2008). New regulations, an enforced code of ethics and striving to be more socially responsible has led Monsanto to enhance their relationships with stakeholders. Monsanto wrote a pledge to inform all of their

The discrimination case that I am discussing is the recent victory of five former and two current warehouse workers of Denver Colorado’s Matheson Flight Extenders, a branch of the Sacramento, California based-Matheson Trucking Company. This suit, stemming from incidents beginning in 2010, involved managers committing the atrocity of race discrimination, defamation of character, and demoralization.

In the court case of Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was used to determine if an employee wrongfully received funds from a third party after receiving funds from the National Elevator Industry Health Benefits plan. In the court case, the petitioner Robert Montanile was driving when he was struck by a drunk driver resulting in Mr. Montanile be severely injured. The health benefit plan paid upwards in of $121,000 in medical expenses for Mr. Montanile. In order to receive such funds, Mr. Montanile was required to sign a reimbursement agreement reaffirming his obligation to reimburse the plan from any recovery he obtained "as a result of any legal action or settlement or otherwise. After exiting the hospital Mr. Monanile sought legal action against the drunk

MILLERSBURG — A Wooster man on Wednesday was given a chance to avoid prison when he was sentenced to complete a treatment program for admittedly being in possession of methamphetamine.

The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today. There have been many cases where the Supreme Court has had to make a decision, and most of the time it is an almost split decision.

Marilyn Thomas purchased a pool heater from Sunkissed. The contract read that the pool was to delivered and installed for a price of $1000.00. The pool heater was delivered to Marilyn’s residence, but the delivery slip was signed by Nancy Thompson. Marilyn did not know of anyone by that name. She called Sunkissed to advise the company to move the heater indoors. She was afraid the heater might be damaged or stolen. The heater remained in her driveway for four days. When Marilyn noticed that the heater had been removed she again called Sunkissed, but she was told “not to worry.” When Sunkissed showed up to install the heater, they realized that the heater had been stolen. Who was responsible for the loss of the heater? Fully explain your answer.

Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded

Skokie v.s. Illinois was a court case in the 1970’s. Frank Collin and his men wanted to march in the town of Skokie. The town consist of Holocaust survivors and people of the jewish decent. In the lower courts they favored the town due to the fact they said that they would attack the nazis. When it came to the supreme court they had a different ruling.

Sgt. Collier appealed the decision claiming there were two errors in the judgment from the courts. First, that the judge allowed prior convictions to be used against him in this case, and second,

It later was found the Nixon was not being honest. A few days after the break in it was found that Nixon payed hundreds

This case is based on 26 former employees of MasTec Advanced Technologies, Inc. (MasTec), who sued the company alleging that their employment were terminated after an appearance on a TV news show, complaining about unfair new pay formula and the instructions to lie to the customers in order to meet with the telephone lines installations rates. As is mentioned in the textbook in the MasTec Advanced Technologies' case, the new pay formula indicate that the technicians would be paid $2 less for basic and additional outlet installations, but would earn $3.35 for each receiver they connected to phone line. It also indicate that they would incur in a back-charge of $5 for every new non-responding receiver installed during a 30 day period if they failed at least 50% to phone lines. (p.466) The technicians also argued that the phone connection was not always possible because most of the time the customers were not interested.

In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right

Because her transfer and suspension came immediately after her initial complaint was filed, it is a clear violation of the “reasonably likely to deter”

his pension intact and will collect $40,000 a year starting in 2014. But, for the cops who gunned