Davis v. Ross
It is not uncommon for employers to talk about their employees among their co-workers or supervisors. But what happens when a company or an individual representing the organization discloses too much information regarding an employee. It is in the best interest of any employer to limit their comments or statements regarding present or past employees as their actions can lead them down a path of court fees and lawsuits. Moreover, companies stand a considerable risk of being sued when they discuss references, employee discharge or evaluations, and other similar situations (Jennings, 1992, p.1). The case of Ms. Gail Davis v. Ms. Diana Ross proves that not only does a person need to be cautious with their selection of words but also
…show more content…
Davis to file suit against Ms. Ross. In 1985 Ms. Gail Davis worked for Ms. Diana Ross as an Executive Assistance for less than a year. She voluntary resigned her position. A year later unknown to Ms. Davis Ms. Ross had written a letter viewed by multiple people in the entertainment industry. Ms. Davis felt the letter made her out to be a termed employee unfit to fulfill the job duties of an Executive Assistant. Without a doubt, the letter written by Ms. Ross is interpreted in various ways. Nevertheless, one must read the publication in its entirety, and not pick out as well as isolate particular phrases of documents (Dunlap & Girvin, 2010, p 14). Below is a summary of the letter that started the lawsuit against Ms. …show more content…
I do not recommend these people. In fact, if you hear from these people, and they use my name as a reference, I wish to be contacted” (Walsh, 2013, p. 164). Ms. Davis filed suit for a libel action. Libel means defamation of character. She felt the letter made her out to be an incompetent employee, therefore, fired for her team. At first glance, the statements made by Ms. Ross is viewed as her terminating Ms. Davis and not providing a good work reference. Nonetheless, another point of view of the letter can signify Ms. Ross accepts people’s resignations voluntarily and indicate she elects not to disclose employment references for liabilities
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
Overall I do not believe she achieves her goal effectively because although she did suggest a different way the company can expand through marketing ideas and ways the company can save money by not stocking up on as much food as they do, she constantly brings up her lack of money or anger towards the distribution of pay. based on the job description. As a result, the letter does not have a central idea, she constantly tries to remind her. CEO of the fact that she isn’t making enough money or her displeasure with the how much others are. paid, while giving ideas that are not backed up with any facts or statistics that it would be successful.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
'Choosing death before dishonor is seen by some philosophers and ethicists as a rational reason to commit suicide.' In the 1994 case of Glucksberg v. Washington (Otherwise acknowledged as Compassion In Dying v. The State Of Washington), Harold Glucksberg, alongside the right-to-die organization Compassion In Dying, filed a suit in opposition to the state of Washington for three fatally ill patients he treated.
Returning to the judicial world of the Bronx Family Court as a judge, after years of working in administration, Judge Richard Ross is astonished to find a distinctly more disjointed situation than the one he left. As he attempts to live out his life as “both the fact finder and arbiter of the law” it is clear the current judicial system does not serve him well (xv). Judge Ross conveys to the reader the fundamental issues of the Family Court system through his day to day happenings which range from endless caseloads to death threats. The use of personal experience is effective in adding credibility to more clearly convey his point that not only the Judges, but the case workers, 18-B attorneys, and various legal aides are overworked to a point
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
Diana Ross case, the court should rule in favor for Gail Davis. In my opinion, the letter could be interpreted as libelous. The combination of expressed dissatisfaction with Davis’ work habits, her erroneous inclusion among a group of people who had been terminated, and the recommendation to not hire her, could be viewed as defamatory. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the lower courts view, that the statements were mere opinion, rather than purported fact. Since the letter claimed to be based on facts and was distributed to others, it was not a mere personal opinion. Additionally, the case was remanded, therefore, the court did not consider the issue of qualified privilege, which is another defamation defense that is often relevant in work related defamation actions Walsh, 2013. P. 153). Presumably, the unsolicited distribution of the letter with its recommendation not to hire, could be viewed as both malice, and as an overly broad publication. The failure to verify the simple fact that Gail Davis had not been fired, could also be viewed as reckless disregard for the
Throughout American History, many minorities have fallen victim to cruel discrimination and inequality, African Americans were one of such minorities that greatly suffered from the white majority’s upper hand. After the end of the Civil War and the Reconstruction period following it, many people, especially the Southern population, were extremely against African Americans obtaining equal rights in the American society. Due to this, these opponents did everything in their power to limit and even fully strip African Americans of their rights. The Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 is an excellent example of the obstacles put forth by the white population against their black counterparts in their long and arduous fight for civil liberty and equality. Even though the court upheld the discriminatory Louisiana law with an 8-1 decision, John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in the case played a significant role in the history of the United States for it predicted all the injustice African Americans would be forced to undergo for many more years, mainly due to this landmark decision.
Such literal divides like this were enough for Davis to prove her stand against racial injustice. When the The Black Liberation Movement was active between the 1960s and 1970s, Davis took part in strong support of her African American people, particularly in prison systems. The Black Power movement was a powerful, action based assertion of racial pride, and self-definition where multiple Afro-American Terrorist groups stood together to fight racism. Interpreted differently both outside and within African-American communities, Black Power was a well reasoned advancement of civil rights. Davis already having a name for herself, being a close associate of the Black Panthers and Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee. Davis had become a strong defendant of three prison inmates of Soledad Prison referred to as the Soledad brothers. The three men, John W.
Davis v. Davis deals with a couple from Knoxville, TN, Junior Lewis Davis and Mary Sue Davis (now Stowe), who eventually turned to in vitro fertilization (IVF) after having much difficult conceiving naturally. Five unsuccessful tubal pregnancies and six attempts of IVF implantations later, the couple allowed the facility to cryogenically preserve their last remaining ova in their final efforts. Their marriage ultimately came to an end, resulting in this dispute regarding the disposition of their “frozen embryos”. The couple was unable to come to an agreement from the very beginning to the end, with Mary Sue initially wanting the embryos with the intent to transfer to her own uterus and Junior wanting them to remain frozen until he decided to
...e appeared in real court cases. One way to think of them is as "never-says", for they are things that an employer that wishes to stay out of court should never say either to or in the presence of an employee.”
According to data from the American Civil Liberties Union, nearly nine out of every ten people stopped and frisked by the police in the United States are completely innocent. This statistic highlights a clear infringement upon the average citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to no unreasonable searches or seizures, as in the case of Illinois v. Wardlow. In this case, Sam Wardlow, a 44-year old black man, was standing on a sidewalk in West Side Chicago when four police cars converged upon the area. Wardlow, who was not visibly engaged in any illegal or suspicious activity, briefly glanced in the direction of the police before fleeing the scene on foot. As the area was well-known
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?