PARTIES: U.S. West, Inc., a Colorado corporation was the sole shareholder in numerous subsidiaries, including Northwestern Bell Telephone Company ("Northwestern Bell"), Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company ("Mountain Bell"), and Pacific Northwest Bell ("PNB"). All these 3 companies provided the regional telecommunication services throughout the western United States. Jerry D. Mooberry worked as Director of New Products Stimulation for Northwestern Bell and had 2 employees Robert H.E. Frank and Tyrone G. Moreno working for him. U.S. West, Inc. was the defendant whereas Jerry D. Mooberry, Robert H.E. Frank and Tyrone G. Moreno were the plaintiffs in this case.
FACTS:
Northwestern Bell, subsidiary of U.S West, Inc., shared no common
…show more content…
was their employer and liable for the acts of its subsidiary, Northwestern Bell.
LEGAL ANSWER AND WHO WINS: After considering various factors, Plaintiffs failed to establish a solid material proof to dispute District court’s judgment that Defendant US West, Inc. was not Plaintiffs' employer. Thus the district court’s judgment that Defendant was not Plaintiffs' employer for purposes of the Title VII and ADEA suits and that Defendant was not liable for the acts of its subsidiary, Northwestern Bell, was affirmed.
REASONING:
The court applied distinct 4 factors to determine whether a parent corporation is liable for the acts of its subsidiary. The following four factors are considered: (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control. Defendant owned the subsidiaries but the operations were interrelated with those of defendant and its subsidiaries. Defendant and the subsidiary, Northwestern Bell had no common officers and had only one common manager, an officer of Defendant who manages the marketing operations for all three subsidiaries — Northwestern Bell, Mountain Bell and
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
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.
US Supreme Court in 1927, in the case Buck v. Bell put a legal example that states can sterilize public institutions inmates (Lombardo, 2009). The argument of the court was that epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and imbecility are hereditary and it was important to the inmates from passing these defects to other generations. May 2nd 1927, the court ordered Buck Carrie, whom it referred as a feebleminded daughter to get sterilization following the 1924 Virginia act of Eugenical Sterilization. Carrie had a feebleminded daughter and her mother was feebleminded too. The case determined that obligatory sterilization laws did not infringe the due process given by the US constitution 14th amendment. It established the legal mandate and bolstered US eugenics movement for sterilizing over 60,000 citizens in over thirty states. Most of these practices ended in 1970s (Reilly, 1991).
In this case analysis, Molly Wright was murdered on 27th Sept 2006, at Redhill Gardens, Airedale, Castleford in the United Kingdom. Bloodstain Pattern Expert Samantha Warna is correct in her testimony. She testifies that the victim, Molly Wright, was killed by her son in law and business partner, David Hill. If she said that she found blood stain patterns on his shoes, jeans, and the denim jacket that he was wearing at the time of her murder (Casey, 2012).
Charlie Bothuell V, a 12 year old boy who lives in Detroit, was locked in the basement of his home by his step-mother and tortured by his biological father who made him do ridiculous amounts of strenuous exercise on a daily basis. He was also denied basic necessities such as food and water. Charlie recently told police that his step-mother barricaded him behind boxes and told him 'not to come out, ‘no matter what he hears’, and threatened “to make him disappear’. The exact exercise regime was 200 sit-ups, 100 pushups, 100 jumping jacks, 25 curls on each arm with a 25-pound weight and thousands of revolutions on an elliptical machine in under and hour. It was also discovered that Charlie’s dad assaulted him with a bloody PVC pipe. Charlie revealed that he was abused the entire two years that he lived with his father. Both adults claim that the allegations are untrue, however doctors agree that Charlie’s injuries are consistent with abuse.
Under these circumstances, the court agreed that Summit had no reason to know or suspect that Kellar was working before her shift. Kellar’s wage payment claim under Indiana law was derivative of her FLSA claim, it failed for the same reasons. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on both claims in Summit’s favor.
You are tasked with finding a case where a prosecutor committed an ethical violation. You are to then draft a paper detailing the conduct that was deemed wrongful and why. ? What type of punishment, if any was imposed? Do you agree with this?
AT&T’s roots stretches all the way back to 1875, when Alexander Graham Bell created the first telephone. The main reason AT&T was created was to exploit the creation of the telephone. AT&T became a parent company to the Bell system, which was a phone company monopoly. They created a long distance telephone network that went from New York to Chicago and then on to San Francisco. Then in 1984 AT&T split into eight different phone companies. They built out to Denver in 1899 and then they hit a rough patch, the signal wasn’t too strong. Luckily, AT&T created the first practical electrical amplifier in 1913. And this made transcontinental communication possible. Bell’s patent expired in 1894 and only Bell telephone could only legally operate in the U.S. The number of telephones grew as phone wires spread across the nation, there where about 3,317,000 phones. The only downside to this early story is that, only phones with the same phone company could contact each other, this was being fixed in 1913. In 1925 there was a new president, Walter Gifford, he sold International Western Electrical Company to the ITT for 33 million to make AT&T universal. In January 1, 1984 was changed and revitalized, it no longer was the bell system. It had a new global icon, as you see today. IN 1984 AT&T carried around 37.5 million calls a day. CEO, Robert Allen, announced that on Septemb...
Years later, the Telecommunication Act of 1996 triggered dramatic changes in the competitive landscape. SBC Communications Inc. established itself as a global communications provider by acquiring Pacific Telesis Group and becoming the new AT&T. The merger of AT& T and BellSouth, along with the ownership consolidation of Cingular Wireless and YELLOWPAGES.COM, will speed convergence, competition and continued innovation in the communications and entertainment industry, creating new solutions for consumers and businesses and positioned to lead the industry in one of its most signifi...
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of
AT&T had developed a reputation for providing high-quality long distance telephone services. It moved rapidly to exploit this reputation in the newly competitive long distance market by aggressively marketing its services against MCI, Sprint, and other carriers. Also, AT&T had traditional strengths in research and development with its Bell Labs subsidiary. To exploit these strengths in its new global competitive context, AT&T shifted Bell Labs' mission from basic research to applied research, and then leveraged those skills by forming numerous joint ventures, acquiring NCR, and other actions. Through this process, AT&T has been able to use some of its historically important capabilities to try to position itself as a major actor in the global telecommunications and computing industry.
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).
The year is 1952 and a young John Rigas purchased a cable company for a mere $300 in Coudersport, Pennsylvania with high hopes of building the company into a successful family owned and operated business (AICPA, 2005, para. 3); a business that would remain unparallel to the rest of its competition. In the late 1990s his dreams came to fruition; John Rigas, along with a few close family members and investors, purchased Century Communications for $5.2 billion and merged the companies together becoming the 6th largest cable company serving more than 5.6 million subscribers (AICPA, 2005, para. 4). Ensuring that the majority of Adelphia’s voting stock and control of the board remained in the hands of f...
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.