Cortez V. Wal-Mart Stores: Case Study

This case is about a denied employment because of her sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1966 Martin Marietta Corp., informed Ida Phillips that it was not accepting job applications from women with preschool-age children, but they were employing men with preschool-age children. I think that this case was fairly settled by the Supreme Court. That is because Phillips and Martin had to go back to “lower” court after the Supreme Court ruling and settle with Martin Marietta.

The rule violates the proposition that students have a fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities. (Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District, 507 S.W.2d 636)

Judge Daughtrey wrote a concurring opinion at the end of the court document. Judge Daughtrey states that statutory modifications need to occur to redefine the class of individuals who are protected

Westover v United States: In Kansas City, Westover was arrested as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. The FBI received a report that Westover was wanted in California on a felony charge. The night of the arrest and the next morning, Westover was questioned by local police. FBI agents also interrogated Westover for two and a half hours at the station. Westover signed two statements, which were prepared by one of the agents during the questioning, to both California robberies.

The person in charge of recruiting told him that he wanted to employ him for $ 19,800. The formal offer was $ 19,300.

1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used. The Koke Company claims that the Coca-Cola Company contained cocaine (from coca leaves) in its product, which it no longer did. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Coca-Cola Co, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. Coca-Cola

Three laws that have shaped and resolved the rights and services available to the students with disabilities will be discussed in this section.Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Act( IDEA )and The Americans Disabilities Act( ADA). The IDEA is the major federal statute providing educational rights to students with disabilities. Even so, two other statutes, Section 504 of the rehabilitation Act and ADA which was modified recently (ADA,2006,2008), also have implication for the disciplinary process when it involves students with disabilities ( Russo & Osborne, 2009).

US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce. The court found that possession of a handgun near a school is not an economic activity that had a substantial affect on interstate

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability. The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.

In the Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case, Dolores Oubre the plaintiff was a scheduler at power plant in Killona, Louisiana, which is run by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the defendant). In 1994, Oubre’s employer gave her two options: she can either improve her job performance or accept a severance pay. While accepting the severance package, Oubre signed a document that released her employer Entergy of all claims. Although the employer Entergy Operations was released of all claims, it failed to meet specific standards or requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as decided or set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). In procuring the release, Entergy failed to comply in at least three respects with the requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: It did not (1) give Oubre enough time to consider her options, (2) give her seven days to change her mind, or (3) make specific reference to ADEA claims (Twomey, 2013, p. 548). After receiving her last severance payment, Oubre filed a lawsuit against Entergy claiming constructive discharge based on her age which is clearly a fail to comply with the ADEA as well as the state law. The defendant Entergy claimed or argued that since Oubre failed to give back the

Name of the Case: Williamson v. City of Houston, Texas 2. Citation: 148 F.3d 462 3. Date Decided: July 22, 1998.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability. The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.

United States v. Morrison was a supreme court case about violence against women. In 1944 while enrolled at Virginia polytechnic institute, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford sexually assaulted her. Both male students were varsity football players. In 1995 Christy filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech 's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty and Crawford was not. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university 's administrative system, Morrison 's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. . Brzonkala then filed to sue Morrison, Crawford, and

Your district must implement a Reduction in Force (RIF) based on declining enrollment and budget cuts. You have recommended a list of teachers from your school to the superintendent. One of the teachers on the list had previously filed an EEOC suit against you alleging discrimination regarding a department chair’s position that she was not awarded. You know that she will allege retaliation as the basis for her layoff.

Just as in other countries, the law in Malaysia can be found not only in legislation, but also in cases decided by the courts. The courts in question are the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, and the two High Courts. This is because only decisions of superior courts are sources of law as they are the courts that decide on matters of law whereas lower courts generally discuss on matters of fact. Decisions of the higher courts are binding to the lower courts which is known as stare decisis.