1. Provide a paragraph summarizing the key points of Meritor v. Vinson.
The Meritor v. Vinson case involved a bank vice president that harassed the plaintiff for several years (Walsh p303). In 1974 Michelle Vinson started working for Meritor Savings Bank as a teller trainer. Sidney Taylor was the supervisor who was also the vice president of the bank. Vinson received the promotion as a teller, head teller then the assistant branch manager in the next four years (FindLaw). On November 1, 1978 the Meritor Bank terminated Vinson for sick leave excessive use FindLaw). A case was filed against Taylor and the bank under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that she was subjected to sexual harassment during her job. The harassment included the bank vice president Taylor following the plaintiff into the bathroom, fondling the plaintiff, then pressuring her to have sex with him(Walsh p303). During the trial, it was revealed that Vinson with the fear of losing her job had sexual intercourse with Taylor several times and he sexually harassed her and made suggestive remarks. The allegations were denied by Taylor and stated that the dispute was business related. The bank also revealed that they were not aware of Taylor’s behavior. The vice president also created what the court decided was an objective and “hostile environment”(Walsh p302).
…show more content…
Sundowner case is that in order for Oncale to claim that he was sexually harassed by his male coworkers under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 (FindLaw) Oncale would have to provide evidence that harassers were motivated by sexual desire; much like in an opposite-sex harassment claim(Walsh p297). At first the court originally decided that Oncale was not able to claim sexual harassment towards his co-workers at Sundowner. After the court decided that the plaintiff, Oncale appealed with the United States Court of Appeals. This led to the Supreme Court reversing the decision
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.
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
Key Facts: (Who are the parties? What are they fighting about? Who is suing whom for what?) Susan Kirkpatrick, Appellant; John Zitz and Transamerica Insurance Company, Appelles; Kirkpatrick originally filed a complaint in trial court for a skunk bite she received while in a pet store owned by John Zitz.
An employee has the right to work in a safe environment, one that is free from hazards that could lead to serious harm. Causing dissention and the hostile work environment for employees created the potential for a violent incident to occur. At the very least, the potential for a costly mistake due to duress they were under, which could have caused physical harm. The defendants’ faced discrimination and retaliation based on their race. This appalling treatment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by doing so, invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allowing the monetary damages
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
Why do you believe these actions were discriminatory? The first case file with EECO by Tanya Conde girl friend of Samuel Varriano Maintenance #3 who was fired from Pitt University .The defendent 's in case Robert Godzik, William Franicola supervisor and Pitt University was dismissed . Now Robert Godzik and Pitt University have confidence themselves this isn 't a hostile work environment .With
Plessy v Fergusen was yet another court case where “separate but equal” was not implementing equality. It showed that they still thought of Black men and women as being less and not deserving the same rights as the White men. Homer Plessy was a free man, that was mainly White and because of a percentage he had of being Black he was treated as a Black man. He tried to sit in the train car of the White men and much like Rosa Parks was asked to go to the back where the Black men belonged in a different car. This case resulted in the Supreme Court defending the decision of the East Louisiana Railroad stating that they weren't violating any law by the ruling they had.
When I asked Robert Hoffman to start at 5:00 a.m. to avoid the harassment fromMichael Niehenke and Donna Myers requested denied. C. When Harry Feals and I work together we have Julie Godzik, Robert Godzik, Brain Weaver and Michael Niehenke . These employees have stared at us until Mr. Franicola come after they called him Other employees are aloud to work together 8. Of the Persons in the same, or similar situation as you who was treated worse than you? Harry Feals Maintenance # 1 Harry Feals Maintenance #1 Mr. Feals received 11 weeks of Work for false allegation filed on pitt alert line, now he is seeking professional health with counseling to help cope with working at Pitt at Greensburg. .
The chief justice resolved the case by providing answers to three issues. The first issue was whether Marbury had the right to
Partisanship and Misconceptions Introduction The saying “the pen is mightier than the sword” is widely known and referenced. However, contrary to popular belief, actions may speak louder than words. This rings true in the case of Michelle Carter, this specific case has been a reoccurring debate, in terms of whether Michelle Carter should be found guilty or not guilty for the death of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III.
This complaint is based upon the allegation of sexual harassment, disruptive, hostile work environment & racial discrimination filed by Brandy Stockton against Dr. Gregory McClain, stemming from their working relationship at the University of Missouri Hospital. Stockton received repeated harassing / threatening phone calls, some of which started the day Dr. McClain resigned subsequent to a peer review. The caller threatened to chop her up and deliver the pieces to her family. A criminal case has been presented to the Cole County Prosecutor against McClain by the M.U. Police Department. They identified an individual in Texas as the probable source of harassing / threatening calls.
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
Eileen Foster was the Executive Vice President of Fraud Risk Management at Countrywide, and later served in the role of Senior Vice President of the Mortgage Fraud Investigation Division at Bank of America after the two companies merged (Foster, n.d.). It was her responsibility to investigate mortgage origination fraud and reporting suspicious activity to regulators and the company’s Board of Directors. After several years of seeing a lot of suspicious activity and blatant acts of fraud she found that the company was playing party to this activity. Any employee who reported fraud and wrongdoing to Employee Relations were being transferred, demoted, harassed or terminated. When Foster reported her concerns to Countrywide’s Internal audit to investigate, the company not only chose to conceal her allegations from Bank of America, but it also directed employee relations to investigate Foster for wrong doing.
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: 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.