Name of the Case: Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 1985. 2. Facts: In 1979, the Cleveland Board of Education hired James Loudermill as a security guard. Loudermill had stated on his job application that he had never been convicted of a felony. While conducting an examination of Loudermill’s employment records approximately eleven months later, the Board of Education discovered that he had actually been convicted of grand larceny, a felony, in 1968. The Board of Education’s business manager sent Loudermill a letter informing him that he had been dismissed due to dishonesty on his original job application. Loudermill was never given a chance to challenge the charge of dishonesty or his termination. As a “classified civil servant” under Ohio state law he could only be …show more content…
His complaint alleged that his termination was unconstitutional because he was not given an opportunity to respond to the charges against him before his removal. As a result he was deprived of liberty and property (steady employment) without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ruled that his due process rights were not violated. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a consolidated appeal: Loudermill’s case together with another similar case (Cleveland Board of Education v Donnelly). The court reversed, in part, the previous decision and stated that the Board of Education had, in fact, violated Loudermill’s due process rights by removing his property right (to employment) before giving him a chance to respond to the charges against him. 3. Main Issue: Can a state remove a civil service employee’s property rights to employment before giving that employee an opportunity to respond to the charges which are the cause for the termination? 4. Court Deciding: United States Supreme Court. 5. Decision: Summary judgment affirming the decision of the Appeals
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Joshua DeShaney's mother filed a lawsuit on his behalf, claiming that because DSS had taken no action to prevent the violence affecting her son, they had violated his right to liberty without the due process gauranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment. Joshua's mother sued under “42 U.S.C. 1983, alleg...
Last summer, my then twelve year old son was asked to participate in the National Junior Leaders Conference in Washington, DC. So, I packed our stuff and we headed for our nation's capital. While there, we visited the Supreme Court and my son, never having been there before, was simply awed. A short time later, we went to the Library of Congress. At the time (I don't know whether or not it's still there), there was a display -- three or four rooms big dedicated to the Supreme Court case Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. While the case was something that Nicholas (my son) and I had talked about on a few occasions, it was interesting to watch him as he navigated through the rooms that had photographs, court documents, newspaper articles, and other memorabilia of the case and the people involved with it. About thirty minutes into our time there, he started to cry softly, but he continued making his way through the display. He went to every single display in those several rooms; he didn't want to leave until he had seen everything and read everything. When we finally left (almost four hours after we arrived), he said to me, "It's disgraceful the way our country treated black people; there was no honor in any of it."
The impact left in this case, Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005), has been an issue that?s gone on for decades. It is a more recent encounter that shows it still exists in modern day. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) and Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) these cases both enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 such as Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005). Rights to equal protection began in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). This case left a huge impact on equal rights against sexual discrimination, discussing the importance of the 14th
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
The case under review involves Bill Foster, who attends a large high school in the northeastern part of the United States. Due to a strong gang presence in the high school, the administrators created a strict policy which denies students the wearing of earrings, jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems. Foster was suspended for wearing an earring to school. He claims that wearing the earring was a form of his self expression and individuality; his intention was not as a gang emblem, but rather a means to attract girls. Foster is suing the school district for violation of his freedom of expression right, guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The case of brown v. board of education was one of the biggest turning points for African Americans to becoming accepted into white society at the time. Brown vs. Board of education to this day remains one of, if not the most important cases that African Americans have brought to the surface for the better of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education was not simply about children and education (Silent Covenants pg 11); it was about being equal in a society that claims African Americans were treated equal, when in fact they were definitely not. This case was the starting point for many Americans to realize that separate but equal did not work. The separate but equal label did not make sense either, the circumstances were clearly not separate but equal. Brown v. Board of Education brought this out, this case was the reason that blacks and whites no longer have separate restrooms and water fountains, this was the case that truly destroyed the saying separate but equal, Brown vs. Board of education truly made everyone equal.
O' Connor, Sandra D. "Boos v. Barry." 22 March 1988. World Wide Web. 3 March 2001.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
The movie “Glengarry Glen Ross” presented a series of ethical dilemmas that surround a group of salesmen working for a real estate company. The value of business ethics was clearly undermined and ignored in the movie as the salesmen find alternatives to keep their jobs. The movie is very effective in illustrating how unethical business practices can easily exist in the business world. Most of the time, unethical business practices remain strong in the business world because of the culture that exists within companies. In this film, the sudden demands from management forced employees to become irrational and commit unethical business practices. In fear of losing their jobs, employees were pressured to increase sales despite possible ethical ramifications. From the film, it is right to conclude that a business transaction should only be executed after all legal and ethical ramifications have been considered; and also if it will be determined legal and ethical to society.