According to my understanding of this case, a discrimination lawsuit was filed by an ex member of the management team. The former director at Silver Oak believes that she was wrongfully terminated from her position at Silver Oaks. The former director made claims alleging inappropriate occurrences which lead to her illegal termination. Furthermore, the top managers at Silver Oak denies her existing claims. The top managers allege that the director’s termination was solely performance based. The top managers are claiming that the termination occurred due to the director’s violation of company policy After reading the scenario requested, as a judge, there lies a number of occurrences that appears to be very concerning. The director alleges that …show more content…
It was also explained the scenario that the former director may have been on medical leave, at the time of termination. According to the Collins Woodford and Icenogle (2014) peer reviewed journal, performance deficiencies that were documented previously, as well as discovered during the former directors medical leave, could lead to legitimate grounds for termination (Pg25). The scenario pointed out that the director received a list of performance behaviors and negative performance evaluations, from several different administrators, as grounds for termination. Unfortunately, the director alleged that she was verbally instructed to call in everyday during an approved medical for which she did not follow. It appears she did not have any documentation for her call in directives, yet there may have been documentation provided to her in regards to the listed grounds of termination. “If the plaintiff is able to produce evidence to support a prima facie case the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse decision” (Wiener & Famum, 2016, Pg537). Otherwise, my decision would have to support the defendant, the
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
...d to the appellant , yet the defendant company itself had no appropriate measures or policy for dealing with the sexual harassment.
On September 12, 2014, Denise Rockett filed a complaint against Eugene Nigro, Esq. Nigro was reportedly negligent when handling legal matters in her late husband’s estate. Specifically, the complainant alleges that Denise, as Executrix of her late husband’s estate, was intentionally excluded from major decisions, not properly compensated, and deprived of control over their properties. Nigro allegedly breached his fiduciary obligation and violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.4(b), 1.7(b), and 8.4(c).
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.
Mrs. Hylton is a 45 year old female who presented to the ED via LEO under IVC by her therapist, Melanie, from ADS. Per documentation Mrs. Hylton denies suicidal ideation and homicidal ideation to nursing staff and MCM before the evaluation. She also contracted for safety with MCM. Dr. Horton requested a mental health assessment on Mrs. Hylton. Before the assessment Ms. Melanie and her supervisor Melissa were contacted. Ms. Melissa reports Mrs. Hylton verbally contracted for safety, however left before ADS could type up terms of verbal agreement. Melissa reports afterwards she was not aware of Mrs. Hylton symptoms of psychosis when speaking with her until being informed by Melanie of findings after conversation with Mrs. Hylton. Melanie upon
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
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
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.
There were 22 workers at Elliott Construction at the time of the deposition: laborers, supervisors, machine operators, admin assistant, and bookkeeper. Elliott Construction provides training and all the employees took the training. He cannot recall when or what company gave the training, but all of the employees received certificates. The classes were trenching and shoring classes. Mr. Elliott has also taken safety classes, a six or seven hour TEEX shoring class. He does not remember when and where he took the class.
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
Facts of the case: The plaintiff was a housewife living in Livonia, Michigan along with her husband and children. She wanted to apply for divorce due to the difficulties in their marital life and informed her husband about divorce two months prior to this incident. On December 6, 1963, the defendant came to the plaintiffs’ house by introducing himself as “Dr. Wolodzko” who had never met the couple before. Except that, the plaintiff did not know that he was a psychiatrist or he was there to examine her as requested by her husband. The plaintiff spoke with the defendant on telephone by the suggestion of Livonia police woman due to the domestic quarrel with her husband and at that time he informed himself as a psychiatrist to the plaintiff.
I am filing this complaint on behalf of my husband and myself. Not due to the decision of the sitting judge, which we honor and will adhere to, but due to the bias and lack of ethics we experienced in Judge Hellenger’s courtroom.
Facts of the case: Anna’s immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly required that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees were aware of these closed-door meetings and, as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her co-workers. Anna asked Michael to clear up the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she scored low points for “integrity” and “interpersonal relations” as a consequence of the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to the employees who were promoted. She filed an action against her employer on the ground that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors.
Ms. Janet Jones did not take the initiative to improve her working habits. Before giving birth and leaving on FMLA Ms. Jones did not have complaints about the policy. Before she made her work schedule around her needs of life and to keep up with company requirements. She did not take the initiative to work it out after returning from her FMLA leave. When hearing that her supervisor is recommending termination, the only conclusion she thought of choosing was to file a complaint in hopes of gaining money. Being in this company gave employees a leverage to make their schedule as pleased within the parameters of the company's working hours of 8 am- 8 pm. This policy was designed to provide employees with the ability to take breaks " at any time, for any reason and for any
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, is specific to this case concerning Marwan’s conduct and is clearly stated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This regulation protects employees against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, race, creed, origin and religion and relates to all employers whether local, state or national. Organizations that employ fifteen or more employees has to stand by this regulation (Civil Rights Act, n.d.). According to this law, a commission called Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has been arranged, to protect individuals in contradiction of discrimination and enforce this as well as additional pertinent laws such as discrimination. Discrimination within the workplace has been in existence for a long time and was initiated by the U.S. Authorities once hearing several cases of harassment. The discrimination law protects applicants, employers and employees. The law states that no employer can take recruitment decision solely on the basis of the race, origin, gender, handicap of the applicant and is unable to take favor over anyon...