Class Action Law Suits: Wal-Mart Stores V. Dukes

• Per summons and complaint, plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims that he was walking on the sidewalk when MOS approached him and asked if he swallowed something. Plaintiff states that informed MOS that he had swallowed a piece of candy then MOS arrested him. Plaintiff states that MOS struck him in the face and body. Plaintiff states that he was taken to Lutheran Hospital.

C) As a Christian individual, Family Research Policy Council is a non-profit organization that aligns with my beliefs in the world. I always to strive to “do the best for the greater good” for the unborn, the oppressed, and the sick. All throughout my life, I have fought for religious liberties, pro-life, and families. Through landmark court cases, such as Engel v. Vital and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, they revealed the critical need for Christian based representatives in policy.

Introduction This case study of Vehar v. Cole National Group is a case where the plaintiff, Wendy Vehar, accused Cole National Group of sex discrimination claiming that as a female she was not being the same wage as a male for performing the same duties. Additionally this study will determine if the plaintiff established a valid prima facie as well as if there was a basis for equal work. Next, what factors did the appeals court base its decision and why is the other-than-sex factor that is presented by the employer insufficient to avoid a trial? Finally, what should the employer have done differently to ensure this type of situation did not occur in their business?

Should corporations be given religious freedom? The case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. has opened the door for corporations to deny all kinds of protections and laws to their employees. What if the corporation in question was a car insurance company, and they did not want to cover their employees birth control? Would they still hold the same position if a citizen (or a whole state) claimed religious exemption to being forced to purchase car insurance?

Lawson. Case to Consider for Ms. Lawson’s Position Juarez v. AutoZone: Rosario Juarez worked at AutoZone for five years and was fired for claiming that woman was given a glass ceiling for promotions along with an unfair hiring process that deterred a woman from getting jobs at the company. The company suggested that Ms. Juarez step down for not being able to take care of her son and work for the company simultaneously. In the end, Ms. Juarez got awarded 185 million in punitive damages, which at the time was the most ever granted to a single employee (Juarez v. AutoZone). It is vital for Greene’s to know the cases that will be presented to the public eye that will get the public rallied against them.

I agree with taking advantage of second- degree price discrimination. I also enjoy the bogo deals at Publix and it is the only grocery store I shop at because of it. When being able to stack coupons on top of these buy one get one free deals you are able to get two items for less than the price of one item. I have found Publix to be much cheaper because of these deals then the other grocery stores in the area. Second-degree price discrimination can definitely work in one’s favor.

Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was the biggest mistake in U.S history, hands down. It is listed as the first case of the top ten worst Supreme Court decisions. Dred scotts case was the most significant because after his, no other case had ruined the reputation of the court quite as bad. This case was a huge deal, and is still an important subject to teach to students today. This case was said to be the case that started the civil war, although that may be an exaggeration.

Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.

Management retaliated in response to her complaint, including reducing her wages and hours. Additionally she was demoted back to the position of cashier and “encouraged not to seek advancement to management positions for which she was eligible, and she was not notified when managerial positions became available.” The store would not provide any formal job postings for these positions and a male staff member would fill them before any female staff members were given the opportunity to apply. She had been employed by Wal-Mart for seven years and was fifty-four years of age when she filed a suit against her employer. Dukes filed a suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alleging she was a “victim of gender discrimination” and that her employer was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The first point that was issued in the dissent is that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, believe that Mr. Martin is not a customer of the tour. That Title III only covers customers; the court ruled that Mr. Martin was a customer and those golf courses whether public or private must make reasonable accommodations. Justice Scalia compares a pro baseball player stating that they participate and play at fields but are certainly not considered customers of the league (PGA Tour, Inc v. Martin, 2001). Title III does not require "... 'modifications [that] would fundamentally alter the nature ' of the goods, services, and privileges."

They felt they were being discriminated against because of their gender. They fought to get to the Supreme Court for 10 years. The Supreme Court’s judges did not come to a mutual agreement as one Judge felt they did not have sufficient evidence to win a case of its nature against Wal-Mart. Moving forward the decision was made that any woman making claims they are being discriminated

In the case of Gallina v. Mintz Levin, Gallina male co-workers were made discriminatory comments after finding out that she had a young child (Walsh, 2013). Gallina spoke with others in the firm and partners in another office firm (Walsh, 2013). The partners that shared the offices with Gallina were upset to hear that she had seeked others thoughts and opinions on the matter at hand (Walsh, 2013). Gallina was eventually terminated based terminated based upon the evaluations that were negative from the partners in her office, even though the other partner outside firm had given her great evaluations (Walsh, 2013). Gallina falls under a protected class through the Title VII, Civil Rights Act.

Why 2nd Amendment Is So Popular Background Information The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today.

The landscape changes lead to environmental consequences such as altering water runoff, habitat destruction, and heat island problems. In addition, the trucks that supply to Wal-Mart cause sound and air pollution. The local people that are employed at Wal-Mart are paid very low salaries, they are subject to sexual discrimination, and are often not paid their due benefits. Erosion is not the only environmental problem with Wal-Mart stores. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection sued Wal-Mart over pesticide and fertilizer pollution in its rivers and streams in May 2000.

What counts as workplace discrimination? How does stereotyping affect a seemingly fair decision process? Is there a line between friendly advice and sexist opinions? These are some of the questions that were discussed in the Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse case of 1985. The court found that Price Waterhouse did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of gender discrimination in the workplace.