Student Name ____________ Case Analysis ____________ Word Count: I. Caption. Smith v. Hy-Vee, 622 F.3d 904 [8th Cir. 2010] 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. 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 …show more content…
Essential Facts. Dru Smith, the appellant, was employed in the bakery department of Hy-Vee, Inc., the appellee. While employed at the bakery, Smith claims to have been sexually harassed by another employee, Sherry Lynch. Smith reported inappropriate touching along with vulgar, sexually charged comments. Lynch engaged in similar kind of conduct toward other women working at the store as well, from which Smith concluded that Lynch was either bisexual or a lesbian. Lynch engaged in the same kind of sexually charged behavior towards the men as well. Other employees were also reported having engaged in similar conduct. Smith claims to have reported the inappropriate behavior to at least twelve managers or coworkers with a total of 66-101 complaints. The management did not take any action on these complaints. The employer denied Smith ever made these …show more content…
During Smith’s employment at Hy-Vee, the store managers and supervisors documented several events where Smith acted inappropriately or challenged her supervisors’ authority. Some of these incidents occurred a few weeks before Smith’s termination. Smith was not allowed to respond to the most recent write-ups although Hy-Vee had such a policy in place. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination against Hy-Vee with the EEOC and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Smith filed claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, after which the case was removed to federal court by Hy-Vee. After the court granted both the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment case, and the in limine motion to exclude evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim, the retaliation case went to trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hy-Vee. Smith
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.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
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.
The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while some of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected.
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.
The court findings have finally come to a conclusion, to confirm regard to defendants Alexander, McCarthy, Caruso, and Correctional Medical Services Inc. because the Plantiff has poorly provided evidence specifying suspicious indifference. However, the court overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment to Heebsh and Pausits, two defendants who return to custody for further actions because of sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment.
Plaintiff Debra Denise Gregg filed a sexual harassment suit for violations of Title VII, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against Hay-Adams Hotel. She sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for damages resulting from emotional distress and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff Anthony Gregg brought the claim for damages resulting from loss of companionship and consortium in the amount of $1,000,000. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s accounts lacked consortium and that the facts did not support her claims for emotional distress and punitive damage.
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
Decision: The court affirmed the judgement of the lower court that complaint of sexual harassment. Arkansas State Police handle the allegation in a timely manner, where McCurdy was not subject to be sexual harassed again by Sergeant Hall.
Is Ms. Smith's dress relevant in this case? Can the city or Mr. McKenna use such testimony to rebut a claim of harassment?
Maetta Vance was picked on by some coworkers, and eventually, one of them got a position acting like a supervisor, while she was working for the Ball State University Banquet and Catering Division of University Dining. These coworkers were Saundra Davis and Connie McVicker. Vance and one of her co-workers, Saundra Davis, had some oral argument that ended with Davis’s slapping Vance in the head (Cornell University Law). Vance’s matter with Connie McVicker was that “Vance was told that co-worker Connie McVicker had bragged about McVicker’s family ties to the Ku Klux Klan and referred to Vance using a racial slur” (Cornell University Law). Davis complained the Ball State University about both co-workers. But, the Ball State University did not solve the problems, and did not fire Davis and/or McVicker that the university gave a written warning to McVicker and formally warned Davis, too (Cornell University Law). Then, Vance sued the Ball State University at the district court, but The district court did not satisfy Vance’s desires about the court outcomes that the university was not able to “be liable for Davis’s actions as a supervisor under Title VII because Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or disciple Vance” (Cornell University Law).
as to whether or not a case is taken up. This is what decides the
... be found in Mr. Hill’s case given he position set out by the majority judgement in this case.
The appeal was filed based on the fact that Smith’s presentence investigation report(PSIR) revealed that he had an extensive juvenile record which included a history of at least twelve offenses. Smith argued that he was entitled to resentencing under MCR 5.913, rewritten as MCR 5.925(E). The information in the PSIR was supposed to be automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913(People v. Smith, 2016). The Court of Appeals considered two panels of discussion before deciding in favor of the
Superior Court, the court summarized what constitute quid pro quo sexual harassment, stating: A cause of action for quid pro quo sexual harassment involves the behavior most commonly regarded as sexual harassment, including e.g., sexual propositions, unwarranted graphic discussion of sexual acts, and commentary on the employee’s body and the sexual uses to which it could be put. To state the cause of the action on this theory, it is sufficient to allege that a term of employment was expressly or impliedly conditioned upon acceptance of a supervisor’s unwelcome sexual advances” (Timothy Broderick and Katrina Saleen, 2008). This case is relatively at Debbie’s situation, in the reason of; offering sexual advances with the preposition of supervisor makes sexual conduct of an employee a condition for employment benefits or