Jensen V. Eveleth Taconite Company Case Study

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Case Name: Williamson v. City of Houston Citation: 148 F. 3d 462 Date Decided: 1998 Facts: A female police officer, Williamson, sued the City of Houston under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which she alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment, and thereafter retaliation for reporting the harassing behavior. The female officer further alleged the behavior created a hostile work environment. Williamson maintains she was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of sexually explicit comments and behavior after transferring into the division. The individual engaging in the offensive behavior was her male partner, Officer Doug McLeod. Williamson stated the behavior continued for eighteen months and was comprised of unwelcomed physical contact and humiliating comments about her body and her appearance.

People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 723 P.2d 1354, 181 Cal. Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S. Ct. 133, 74 L. Ed.

1. Title and Citation Vance v. Ball State Univ. 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

Key Facts: (Who are the parties? What are they fighting about? Who is suing whom for what?) Susan Kirkpatrick, Appellant; John Zitz and Transamerica Insurance Company, Appelles; Kirkpatrick originally filed a complaint in trial court for a skunk bite she received while in a pet store owned by John Zitz.

This lawsuit has been settled. The jury awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages. The judge added an additional $223,292 in damage. State Farm Insurance plans to appeal.

The Court’s legal conclusions: The Court reversed the initial judgement and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs in the appeal citing the three arguments given in the City’s case were

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the NLRB decide? This case is based on 26 former employees of MasTec Advanced Technologies, Inc. (MasTec), who sued the company alleging that their employment were terminated after an appearance on a TV news show, complaining about unfair new pay formula and the instructions to lie to the customers in order to meet with the telephone lines installations rates. As is mentioned in the textbook in the MasTec Advanced Technologies' case, the new pay formula indicate that the technicians would be paid $2 less for basic and additional outlet installations, but would earn $3.35 for each receiver they connected to phone line.

Your honor, I am Micha Schiebe [defendant] for my company, TGI Friday’s. This is court case number 2590-11-2 Bernard v. Carlson Companies TGIF and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America. This case took place on January 4,2010. On January 4, 2010, Michael Bernard had the opportunity to sample a new item on the menu at TGI Friday’s, his place of employment.

Case Questions: 1: “Why couldn’t this case have been covered by title VII on the basis of gender?” The Case could not be covered by title VII on the basis of gender because the document does not contain language regarding discrimination to one 's affectional or sexual orientation. However, the federal court concludes that discrimination on the basis of sex outlaws discrimination against women because they are women and men since they are men. Due to LAD, this situation is gender discrimination. 2: If Enriquez’s employment with Health Systems were not terminated, would she still have a claim for discrimination?

This article discusses how Target Corp. In Minneapolis will pay $2.8 million dollars in a hiring discrimination claim filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The money will be divided among thousands of applicants who were adversely impacted. The discrimination claim alleged that Target used three employment assessments that disproportionately screened out applicants based on race and gender.

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide? This case is based on a sex discrimination claim established by the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Dial Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC represents a group of women who applied for work in Dial Corporation, but they were not hired after the test called Work Tolerance Screen (WTS).

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are very serious issues happening today in the workplace. Women or men have suffered from unsolicited sexual behaviors that are typically provoked by someone “higher” in position. “Sexual harassment especially has been a fixture in the workplace since women began to work outside their homes” (Fitzgerald, 1993). It is solely the responsibility of the employer to ensure that all employees within are aware and are very cautions of laws, misconduct, and liabilities. Employers must enforce the Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and further extend those laws and guidelines to their employees.

During the late March 2011, the Court heard the first oral arguments. On 20 June 2011, the Court issued its ruling, reverting the ruling of the court of appeals. In October 2011, the plaintiffs reopened their complaint with the federal court in San Francisco. This time, they claimed gender bias on the behalf of employees in California.

Discrimination has become a major issue in the workplace and sometimes difficult to pinpoint discriminative acts. Discrimination acts range from biasness in the promotion, hiring, assignment of duties, compensation, the method of termination, retaliation, various forms of harassment, and so forth. However, Americans can comfortably rely on some federal laws that serve to counter discrimination at the workplace. Throughout the hiring and the termination process, it is important that the employees become aware of the appropriate process to keep off from acts of discrimination. , in this case, John is an employee of the private entity that goes against the principles of the current law relating to discrimination.