1.) What were the essential facts in Rabidue? (1 point)
The essential facts presented in Rabidue are that the plaintiff (Rabidue) and the defendant (Henry) worked for the same company and Rabidue filed for sexual harassment charges because of their bitter work relationship. The plaintiff is described as an independent, aggressive, intractable, and opinionated character who her supervisors found as abrasive, rude, antagonistic, and uncooperative. Also, Rabidue is described as someone who constantly argues with co-workers, jeopardizes the company’s business relationships, and does not follow policy or instruction whenever they conflict with personal reasons. The defendant, on the other hand, is the supervisor of Osceola Refining Company who is
…show more content…
Quid pro quo, also referred to as “this for that”, occurs when an employee is expected to give into sexual demands in exchange for an employee raise or promotion. If the employee fails to accept the employer’s offer, he/she risks losing some sort of benefit and potentially could even lose his/her job. In regard to the case of Theresa Rock v. Joe Roberts, the type of sexual harassment expressed is hostile environment. Hostile environments are generally created when one person’s vulgar behavior leads to an uncomfortable atmosphere for others to work in. Rock argues that she was a victim of a hostile work environment while working for Roberts. She claims that during her time working as an electrician, the men at work would take her equipment and torment her. When she confronted Roberts about the problems she was facing, she felt that she was being picked on and that the men were not only jealous of what she was capable of, but also discouraged by the fact that she was a woman performing a man’s job. Roberts asks Rock out to dinner in order to figure out what is going on, which potentially made Rock uncomfortable pushing her to the breaking point of quitting her job as an electrician. Personally, I would not consider this as an example of quid pro quo because Roberts did not impose any threats towards Rock if she declined the invitation. On the other hand, if Roberts’s had threatened Rock stating that she would lose her job or not receive a raise for declining the invitation, then the circumstances of the situation would be different. Despite Roberts’s offer, Rock’s last straw is when a crane operator drops a stack of pallets from a great height onto the ground in front of her, which brought Rock to tears causing her to never return back to the construction company. In all, this event can be considered as a hostile work environment because it is made
Facts: Mrs. Moore entered into the Midwest City Target looking for a magnetic chess set and was informed that Target does not sell those. When Mrs. Moore was made aware of this information she started looking in the toy section. She picked up a telescope and the package was priced for around five or six dollars, so she purchased the telescope. Mr. Lanigan became aware of the situation and took the package from her car, led her inside, recited her rights, and accused her of switching price tags to make the item cheaper for her. One of Retail Shrinkage Control Employees also accused her of switching price tags.
The Ms. Silvera v. Olympia Jewelry Corporation case is an employment law case. Michelle Silvera was not treated right by her boss, Morris Olympia. Her working environment was not safe due Morris's inappropriate comments and sexual assaults. Under the Human Rights Code, everyone had the right to a safe working environment. It states that the employer should provide a safe environment for his/her workers, which clearly Morris did not do.
• Per summons and complaint, plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims that he was walking on the sidewalk when MOS approached him and asked if he swallowed something. Plaintiff states that informed MOS that he had swallowed a piece of candy then MOS arrested him. Plaintiff states that MOS struck him in the face and body. Plaintiff states that he was taken to Lutheran Hospital.
MILLERSBURG — Two brothers serving a 14-month prison sentence were free men, for the most part, after Holmes County Common Pleas Judge Robert Rinfret granted both judicial release Wednesday. In December, Dennis Carl Bevington, 55, and Gary Lee Bevington, 62, both of 833 Depot St., pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to failure to provide for a functionally impaired person. In exchange for their pleas, the more serious charges of involuntary manslaughter were dismissed. They could have faced 11 years in prison.
• Search warrant. Plaintiff claims false arrest, unlawful and excessive. Per the summons and complaint, there are two incident. First incident (September 15, 2011, at 0600 hours 222 Brooklyn Ave, Brooklyn) and second incident (March 8, 2013, at 0600 hours 222 Brooklyn Ave, Brooklyn) are both search warrant execution. In each incident, plaintiff states officers, including Det.
Offense: Assault Date: 08/2006 Results: Charges Dismissed This incident occurred on Schofield Barracks Hawaii. My former spouse abused the military system to work to her benefit. She repeatedly contacted the chain of command or the Schofield Barracks Military Police whenever she felt the need to have the joint residence to herself. Enacted policy at the time required the chain of command to remove any soldier who was experiencing any marital tension when the situation could have escalated.
Additionally, sexual harassment is not always from a man to a woman. While society portrays men as the abusers, there have been instances of women sexually harassing men. Moreover, it is hard to define creepy behavior. The term quid pro quo sexual harassment is a favor exchanged for sexual favors. To be defined as a creeper a woman may doubt his motives, his character, and how he perceives her.
Court proceeding and judgment change eventually with time. Every case that is heard within the court system might potentially alter court proceedings that follow. The courts up hold the law and make sure that the defense and prosecution abide by it for a clear judgment. After reading Case No. 09-3133 REGINALD MEEKS v. DAVID MCKUNE, and Case No. 05-5049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CONRAD DOMINIC POOLE, law that protect the defendant are up held in court if there is reason to believe an error in conviction has occurred. If applying to appeal to the court’s decision and it’s valid it will be heard.
Michael M. vs Superior Court is the case that brought gender-neutrality in the criminal justice system to the light. Before this case was presented to the court, few states had adopted a gender-neutral statutory rape case and California, where the case took place, was not among them. The defense argued that California’s rape laws went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then there was case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a former schoolteacher that was engaging in a sexual relationship with her 12 year old student. Letourneau was sentenced to 6 moths in jail while Michael M. received 10 years.
This court case is based off the legal concept of Negligence. Negligence is defined as “A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act” (Negligence). Negligence is at the heart of every trail especially when dealing with sports related trials. Article #1
“Do you know the defendant?’ “Yes, we were close friends until today, now I’m not sure.” “Now Mrs. Hawkins, tell the court what Marlene Barnes said about her mother?” “I’m not sure what you mean,” she said not wanting to testify against Marlene. “Mrs. Hawkins, what did Marlene Barnes say she said when Mrs. Lincoln threatened to tell her husband about Frank?”
Canada is often referred as one of the lowest crime rated countries in the world and it’s also considered one of the safest countries in the world, but there are crimes that often happens but they are not reported one of those crimes is sexual harassment and assault. Case law in Canada pertaining to sexual assault and harassment are not capable to act as a punishment since these laws often favoured the perpetrator because most of the victims are ashamed to speak out therefore these acts continue to be pervasive in Canada. The Ontario human rights code states that everyone has the rights to be free from sexual discrimination based on sex which includes sexual assault/harassment. However, history has shown that people have overlooked it. One of the most
Although he was at first understanding and accepting of Job, he swiftly shifts to upsetting Job and worsening the situation through cynical debating that undoubtedly shattered their relationship. Job’s description of Eliphaz and the others as “miserable comforters” becomes increasingly correct. (Job.
Sexual harassment and sexual assault are very serious issues happening today in the workplace. Women or men have suffered from unsolicited sexual behaviors that are typically provoked by someone “higher” in position. “Sexual harassment especially has been a fixture in the workplace since women began to work outside their homes” (Fitzgerald, 1993). It is solely the responsibility of the employer to ensure that all employees within are aware and are very cautions of laws, misconduct, and liabilities. Employers must enforce the Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and further extend those laws and guidelines to their employees.
Sexual harassment is identified as any unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances, verbal or physical behavior of sexual nature and requesting for sexual favours due to which a worker’s performance is affected, he/she suffers from psychological trauma or an offensive/hostile atmosphere is created at the workplace. The occurrence of workplace sexual harassment is linked with several risk factors. The nature of job and particularly the gender ratio at a workplace and traditionally male oriented jobs are among the significant ones. These pose an increased risk for women to face situations of getting sexually offended or harassed.