Defendant, Brad Hamilton (“Mr. Hamilton”), pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 7.1 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, respectfully moves for the entry of final summary judgment as to all claims pled by Plaintiff, Hannah Carson (“Ms. Carson”). In support of its Motion, Mr. Hamilton submits the following Memorandum of Law.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In a motion for summary judgment “[t]he moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no
…show more content…
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to “designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” H&R Block E. Enterprises, Inc., 606 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Celotex Corp., 447 U.S. at 324). Summary judgment could only be precluded if there are disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 …show more content…
§ 2000e-2 unlawful employment practices. Ms. Carson alleges that Mr. Hamilton administers an exam that has an adverse impact on women. Ms. Carson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC sent Mr. Hamilton a letter indicating that Ms. Carson filed a charge against him and that the charge was filed on October 12, 2015. Mr. Hamilton should be granted summary judgment as a matter of law because Ms. Carson has not met the time requirement for filing a complaint with the EEOC as required by law. For a plaintiff to establish a successful action, section 706 of Title VII requires that a plaintiff “exhaust certain administrative remedies before filing a suit for employment discrimination.” EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). To initiate the administrative process a plaintiff is required to file a timely charge with the EEOC. Id. at
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
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.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Facts: In the above case, employee Joel Hernandez was tested positive for cocaine. With the fear of being dismissed from his job, he acknowledged that his behaviour violated petitioner Raytheon Company's workplace conduct rules, and obviously, was pressed to quit his job. Also, the reason for the employee resignation was also based on the notion that had he not resigned it would be petitioner who would eventually fired him from his work. After more than two years of rehabilitation, petitioner applied to be re-employed alleging on his application that the following had previously hired him. In his application, he also attached letters coming from, his pastor about his active church participation and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counsellor about his regular visit and attendance at meetings and his immediate recovery. When a HR employee of petitioner reviewed Hernandez application, she then rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has a policy against rehiring employees who are terminated for workplace wrongdoing. According to the HR employee, she did not know that that employee was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. As a result to this development, Hernandez instituted a suit and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), averring that his rights has been violated in consonant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a consequence, gave a go signal to the respondent and issued a right-to-sue letter and the right to file an ADA action. Following this, respondent established an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) action, alleging that petitioner did not act on his application for the reason that he has a record of drug addition and/or because he was known before as being a drug user. On the other hand, petitioner responded by filing a summary judgement motion. This resulted to respondent's argumentation in the alternative that in the case that petitioner sought for a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it is still sufficient to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) because of that policy's disparate impact.
The case of Sara Montague et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMN Healthcare, INC., Defendant and Respondent, was taken up and decided in the appellate court. The case was first granted a standard review of a summary judgment, which failed, the plaintiff then appealed this motion. After the appeal it then went to court to be heard in a normal trial. Just to be a bit more precise, it was heard and decided as case No. D063385. in the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, on the 21st of February in 2014. In this court case, representing Sara Montague, the plaintiff and appellant, was the law office of
If Petitioner did preserve his evidentiary claim, Petitioner still fails to show that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony. Using testimony limitations to prevent prejudice to a co-defendant is within existing precedent and comports with Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Sue contracts with Tom to deliver a quantity of computers to Sue’s Computer Store. They disagree over the amount, the delivery date, the price, and the quality. Sue files a suit against Tom in a state court. Their state requires that their dispute be submitted to mediation or nonbinding arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved, or if either party disagrees with the decision of the mediator or arbitrator, will a court hear the case? Explain. (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.)
On October 23, the trading day immediately following Skechers earnings report, the stock was down almost 32%, S&P 500 up 1%. The spiral dive in stock price was probably due to investors overreacting to one bad day, news or press release, or the investors did not trust Skechers’ management, which reflects the market losing faith in the brand. Hence, the unpredictable dive affects the informational inefficiency of the stock market that takes short or long time to adjust quickly and fully to any new or surprising information. R2. Search the internet to understand Regulation FD. Does Reg FD have any bearing on post earnings price moves such as the one exhibited by Skechers in our example? If so, why? If not, why not.
After the defendant receives the summons, they must respond by filing an answer or preliminary motion within the federal court or preliminary objection within the state court. Th...
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
In the event the petitioner files a reply brief, the appellate court does not allow oral argument; it determines whether the petition will be granted based solely on the briefs” (Litigation Section, 2011, p. 4). When a criminal case petition is done it is referred to one or more judges in the Court of Appeals. If a petition is granted briefs are filed by both parties and the clerk refers it to a panel of the Court but if the appeal is not granted the petitioner then has the right to appear in front of a panel to state why their petition should be granted. In the end if all of the judges agree that the petition should not be granted then the case ends and the defendant can try for another
Judicial Precedent "Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making." Judges have always been relied upon to interpret and apply the law. Therefore, their decisions should be fair and consistent so as the individuals seeking legal remedies would have more faith in the judicial system of the state. AS the UK has not a very complete and/or codified constitution, this doctrine is very much relied on as contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation.