Case # 4 Chapter 2.
Case # 4 Chapter 2.
Issue: There are two parties involved in the case dispute the one is called plaintiff, according to Kubasek. , Browne, , Herron, , Giampetro-Meyer, , Barkacs, , Dhooge, , & Williamson, (2012) the definition of plaintiff is, “ the person or party who initiates a lawsuit (an action) before a court by filing a complaint with the clerk of the court against the defendant(s). Also known as claimant or complainant,” (page, G22). In this case Jarold Daniel Friedman is plaintiff; he is the one who initiates the lawsuit before the court against the pharmaceutical warehouse, so warehouse is defendant, as according to Kubasek. , Browne, , Herron, , Giampetro-Meyer, , Barkacs, , Dhooge, , & Williamson, (2012) , “The person , party , or entity against whom a civil or criminal lawsuit is filed in a court of law,” (Page G-7). The issue of this case is discrimination on the base of religion as the condition for giving permanent job is to get vaccination which is against the religion practice of the plaintiff, so he raised this issue in the court against the defendant who is employers.
Rule of Law: the rule of law in this case is about religious discrimination, as According to (U.S Equal Employment, 2014), “religious discrimination involves treating a person, an applicant or employee, unfavorably because of his or her religious belief. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, other term and condition of employment,” (U.S Equal Employment , 2014).
Analysis: The facts associated with the case are religion law discrimination. Because this fact is the main problem and legal issue for the case. The warehouse put the condition of vaccination which is against the religion practice of the plaintiff. Then warehouse withdrew the offer, so Friedman claimed that warehouse discriminated against him on the basis of religion. No I don’t agree with Friedman, even though
Issue: There are two parties involved in the case dispute the one is called plaintiff, according to Kubasek. , Browne, , Herron, , Giampetro-Meyer, , Barkacs, , Dhooge, , & Williamson, (2012) the definition of plaintiff is, “ the person or party who initiates a lawsuit (an action) before a court by filing a complaint with the clerk of the court against the defendant(s). Also known as claimant or complainant,” (page, G22). In this case Jarold Daniel Friedman is plaintiff; he is the one who initiates the lawsuit before the court against the pharmaceutical warehouse, so warehouse is defendant, as according to Kubasek. , Browne, , Herron, , Giampetro-Meyer, , Barkacs, , Dhooge, , & Williamson, (2012) , “The person , party , or entity against whom a civil or criminal lawsuit is filed in a court of law,” (Page G-7). The issue of this case is discrimination on the base of religion as the condition for giving permanent job is to get vaccination which is against the religion practice of the plaintiff, so he raised this issue in the court against the defendant who is employers.
Rule of Law: the rule of law in this case is about religious discrimination, as According to (U.S Equal Employment, 2014), “religious discrimination involves treating a person, an applicant or employee, unfavorably because of his or her religious belief. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, other term and condition of employment,” (U.S Equal Employment , 2014).
Analysis: The facts associated with the case are religion law discrimination. Because this fact is the main problem and legal issue for the case. The warehouse put the condition of vaccination which is against the religion practice of the plaintiff. Then warehouse withdrew the offer, so Friedman claimed that warehouse discriminated against him on the basis of religion. No I don’t agree with Friedman, even though