201201180
October 8
2015
KHUMO SEROJANE
DEPARTMENT OF LAW LAW 334 EMPLOYMENT LAW TEST ONE
A contract of employment is an agreement, either oral or written, setting out the terms as bilaterally negotiated by the parties and conditions provided for in the contract. A contract of employment is not a special type of contract, it is one like any other, therefore normal rules and essentials of agreement apply. In an employment contract, a person, ‘employee’, undertakes to perform certain duties as he is directed and controlled by another person, ‘employer’. In return for performance of such duties, the employee shall receive a salary or wage as agreed upon between the
…show more content…
This then begs the question as to what type of information is confident. The court in the English case of Faccenda Chicken v Fowler stated that the information gained by an employee falls into three categories: Information so accessible to the public, confidential information and special trade secrets. In the Faccenda case, the respondent was employed as a sales manager of the plaintiff company. His employment later ended and he then set up his own business of selling chicken. He competed with the appellant and the majority of his customers were former customers of the appellant. The appellant argued that the respondent had broken his contract, in particular the implied duty of good faith and fidelity by using customer lists and pricing information it obtained while employed by the applicant. The court held that the duty of good faith will be broken if an employee makes or copies a list of the customers of his employer for use after his employment ends, except in special circumstances, there is no general restriction on an ex-employee canvassing or doing business with customers of his former employer. Further that the pricing information in question was not a trade secret and ousted to the fact that the sales information was necessarily acquired by the employee in order that they could do their …show more content…
Had the defendant started his business while still employed and obtained customer information, then he would be liable as it was held in the case of Wessex Dairies v Smith (1935) 2 KB 80 where an employee was held liable for soliciting his masters customers to transfer their custom to himself, even though the transfer was to take effect only after he terminated his services , but in this case Rembrandt Chenayi Jangano is not in breach of the duty as the soliciting of customers only occurred after the termination of his services. The plaintiff company was unable to establish that the defendant breached his duty of fidelity during his employment by diverting business for his own
Title of Case: Lau v. Nichols: 414 US 563 (1974) Plaintiff: Kinney Kinmon Lau Defendant: Alan Nichols, San Francisco Unified School District Setting: San Francisco, CA Major Issues Raised/ What is the case about? This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students.
Ronald Chilton’s Deposition Summary Ronald Chilton serves at the President and CEO of National Trench Safety Consolidated Holdings, National Trench Safety, LLC, National Trench Safety Manufacturing and Engineering, and NTS Mikedon. NTS Consolidated is the holding company above National Trench Safety, LLC. National Trench Safety, LLC is the wholly owned subsidiary of NTS Mikedon. NTS Manufacturing and Engineering is a wholly owned subsidiary of NTS, Mikedon LLC. NTS Mikedon rented the equipment to Elliott Construction for the College Station project.
Cedar Rapids v. Garrett F. Garret F., was a quadriplegic who was ventilator-dependent due to his spinal column being severed in a severe motorcycle accident when he was 4 years old. During the school day, he required a personal attendant within hearing distance to see to his health care needs. He required urinary bladder catheterization, suctioning of his tracheostomy, observation for respiratory distress, and other assistance. He attended regular classes in a typical school program and was successful academically.
Michael Terceiro, 'ACCC v Ticketek - a non-event?' (2012) 64(3) Keeping Good Companies 158-161
As Lawyer Farrington said, Lou Dempsey was accused of illegally selling alcohol to the minor, Eric Howe. Mr. Dempsey failed to meet his responsibilities of asking for identification and anticipating violence and/or accidents caused from alcohol. The amount of alcohol that was given to Mr. Howe, allowed each member attending the party to dissipate their sobriety after drinking four standard cups.
Therefore, the accommodation of permitting the plaintiff to be exempted from having to rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9 would create the removal of a marginal function and make it a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that neither the written job description for the inspector positions nor the mutual agreement made reference to the rotation of the job. The Job rotation policy had never been the general practice of this company in the past. The court also noted that the inspector position does not exist for the purpose of having employees rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9, the use of a rotation system had no bearing on the number of employees needed to perform the work, and rotating between lines is not a highly desirable function for which plaintiff was exactly hired, Indeed, it is the contrasting of a specialized skill of the employees. The court stopped short of actually deciding that job rotation is not an essential function of this job and leaving that determination for the
Rachael Martinelli Case Study 8-2: The Outsourced Work 1. Is BE bound by the terms of the project labor agreement, which it did not directly sign, including the duty to submit this labor dispute to final and binding arbitration for resolution? I believe that Bolton Engineering (BE) should not always be bound to the terms of the project labor agreement, that they did not directly sign. Bolton Engineering should only be bound to these conditions if they are working onsite. They did not directly sign the with the labor union so they should only have to follow the labor union when they are working on the premises of Rocket Motor Corporation.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
The case Howes v. Fields was involved with the Miranda rights. The case is about an inmate´s confession about a sex crime without having the police officers questioning him telling him his Miranda rights. Mr. Fields had been brought to the jail of Michigan because of disorderly conduct. While being in jail Mr. Fields had been questioned by the police for several hours about the disorderly conduct. He was not told his Miranda rights, but he was told he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted too.
Dred Scott v. Sandford was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. The case was decided in 1857 with a 7–2 decision. Scholars today believe it is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in the 1790’s. In 1830, he was bought by Dr. John Emerson.
George Anthony The witness list includes Vasco Degama Thompson, an ex-convict who served time for kidnapping, ABC affiliate WFTV reported. The defense alleges that Thompson had phone conversations with George Anthony on July 14, just days before Caylee was reported missing, Cindy Anthony was the one who reported Caylee missing, in July 2008 Lee Anthony testified about his sister's pregnancy with Caylee, breaking down in tears as he claimed his family ignored her pregnancy, not talking about it until just days before she gave birth in 2005. Tony Lazzaro was seen with Casey the day after she was reported missing Roy Kronk found Caylee Anthony’s remains in a wooded area near the Anthony family home, he saw a white object in the same location
In 1993 17 year old Christopher Simmons and two friends, John Tessmer and Charles Benjamin had planned to murder Shirley Crook. Then night of the murder one of the men , John Tessmer dropped out but Simmons and Benjamin carried out the plot. Around 2 am the men broke into Crook’s house through a window and committed robbery. Later, the two men entered Crook’s home and tied up the victim and covered her head. The suspects drove Crook to a nearby State park and threw her body into the Meramec river.
A) Introduction Unethical behaviors in business affect everyone since you either work in the field or are a consumer of its services. Unfortunately, almost every company usually has individuals who act unethically whether it is for their personal benefit or for the sake of the company they work for. Unethical behaviors in business might be as simple as using company property or funds for personal gain to inside trading and financial fraud. According to The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, nearly one third of business professionals feel pressured to compromise their ethical standards and are increasingly pushed towards unethical behavior. Moreover, “misconduct is common and accepted by business services professionals, the integrity of entire economic systems is at risk”, states Jordan A. Thomas, partner and chair of the Whistleblower Representation Practice at Labaton Sucharow law firm.
Bourhill v Young (1943) AC 92 is a Scottish delict case which emphasize on how extensive an individual duty to ensure others are not harmed by their actions or activities, this case has established on how the scope of recovery for bystanders or who are uninvolved with physical harm. This case centers around an incident where Mrs Bourhill claimed that she suffered shock due to the fact that Mr young had a collision with a car around 50 ft away from her while she was exiting a tram car. To be exact, this case took place on the 11 October 1938 where Mr Young was negligently riding his motorcycle along the road, and happen to have a collision with a car fatally injuring him, Mrs Bourhill was leaving a tram car while the collision took place.