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
(2) Background Information As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money
Thicke v. Marvin Gaye’s Estate Lawsuit Marvin Gaye family accused Robin Thicke of using elements of Marvin Gaye’s song, “Got to Give It UP” in “Blurred Lines” and allegedly threatened litigation if a monetary settlement was not paid. Thicke filed a preemptive declaratory judgment lawsuit against Gaye’s family after alleged preliminary settlement negotiations failed. In response, Gaye’s family filed a separate counterclaim accusing Thicke of copyright infringement of Gaye’s songs “Got to Give It Up” and “After the Dance”, as well as EMI April, Inc. of breach of contract and its fiduciary duties. Gaye’s family later submitted a separate counter claim against Thicke to include “Blurred Lines” co-writers Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris, Jr. After a jury trial, Marvin Gaye’s family was awarded $7.4 million in copyright damages and attributable to infringement. The Gaye’s family was not awarded determined due to the infringement was found not to be willful.
In 1967, William Baird was arrested after giving away vaginal foam to a 19 year old woman following a lecture at Boston University about contraceptives and over-population. At the time, in Massachusetts, it was felony offense to disburse birth control methods to unmarried men or women. Eventually, Eisenstadt v. Baird was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1972. In a 6-to-1 judgement, the Court ruled against the Massachusetts statute, but it was not in aggreeance with the due process of Griswold v. Connecticut, instead it was the Equal Protection Clause that was the deciding factor as reported by Justice William J. Brennan. He wrote, “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single,
So a manual recount was started. Bush decided to take the case to the Federal Supreme Court. Bush argued that the recount that was currently taking place was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court ruled 5 - 4 in favor of Bush and the manual recount was stopped. The votes that had been counted had closed the gap
One of the most challenging element to prove a common law marriage is the clear intent to enter a valid marriage buy both parties, not just one party. As decided in Hargrave v. Duval-Couetil (777 N.W.2d 380), the Supreme Court of South Dakota concluded that to meet common law mariage requirements, the mutual agreement or declaration to marry would have to be more than an implicit agreement. In this case, the party failed to establish a clear intent to marry, and as a matter of law, Hargrave could not prove by clear and convining evidence that the couple entered into a valid comon law marriage. Q. Is common law marriage recognized in Massachusetts?
Issue: Did the Connecticut statue violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and did the Constitution therefore protect the privacy of married couples? Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court did rule the the Connecticut statue was indeed unconstitutional
These directors were claiming that the ruling that led to their conviction had violated the 14th Amendment, which states citizens’ rights to privacy and equal protections from the laws. Issue: Is there existence of a right in the Bill of Rights allowing married couples to use contraceptives to prevent conception? Decision: Yes. Reason: Implied rights listed by the court included the Fifth Amendment, which offers protection
The Supreme Court ruled that the Homosexual Conduct law was unconstitutional and overturned the conviction of Lawrence and his male companion. The Court ruled that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause because it protects the right to personal liberty in intimate decisions(Lawrence vs Texas, Case Briefs). The Court argued that its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was misguided. The issue was not the right to commit sodomy but “the right to privacy in the home" and "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex. "(Lawrence v Texas).
In this case the Supreme Court debated whether inter-racial marriage should be allowed. This court case came up after an inter-racial couple tried to get married legally but was rejected by the state of Virginia. Therefore, couple did not think this was fair so they took the case up to the Supreme Court where the Court declared that not allowing interracial couples to marry was violating the Equal Protection Clause. Thanks to this case we have President Obama and many other famous celebrities and sports stars such as Seth
They ruled that the 1st amendment did not guarantee ultimate freedom of speech and anyone violating the government could be overthrown by the state. The historical impact that the case was made mostly from Justice Brandeis, who stated that immediate serious and evil threats should be the only ones that are taken seriously enough to strip away someone’s granted rights. Brandeis’s opinion was put to use in 1969 when the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which is when the court overruled the decision. Yes, there are laws to help protect the natural-born citizens of this country, but if they can be taken and maneuvered to make sure the courts get what they want, why have
For example, Hobby Lobby sued the government so that they “would not have to provide coverage for contraceptives for its employees” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Strine, 2015, p. 91). They ultimately won their case in Supreme Court. The decision the Supreme Court made in the Hobby Lobby case supported the need for an insurance exchange in the open market. The hurdle then becomes the obstacle some states are posing by not developing exchanges. In