Preview

Case Briefing Vizcaino V. Us Dist. Court for Wd of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1706 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Case Briefing Vizcaino V. Us Dist. Court for Wd of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)
Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

Material Facts: Donna Vizcaino, Jon R. Waite, Mark Stout, Geoffrey Culbert, Lesley Stuart, Thomas Morgan, Elizabeth Spokoiny, and Larry Spokoiny sued on behalf of themselves and a court certified class against Microsoft Corporation and its various pension and welfare plans, including its Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP), and sought a determination that they were entitled even as independent contractors to participate in the plan benefits because those benefits were available to Microsoft 's common law employees. Procedural History:
The Plaintiffs filed action against Microsoft Corp. for inclusion in Microsoft’s employee benefit plans. The district court denied the plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment while granting Microsoft 's.
The plaintiff’s appealed the district court’s decision and the appeal’s court reversed the district court’s judgment for Microsoft and remanded for determination of any remaining issues regarding the rights of a particular worker.
On remand the district court issued its “Order Regarding Scope of Remand.” It denied Microsoft’s motion for clarification of the composition of the class, rejecting its contention that the class definition excluded those who were temps and whose claims arose post conversion. The court concluded that the class would remain as defined. Microsoft renewed its motion to amend the class certification asking the court to “certify subclasses for the question of who is a common law employee.”
The district court denied the motion but “clarified” the employee class definition, limiting the class to specific workers (independent contractor). The district court also granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff’s.
Plaintiff’s filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued a further “Order Regarding Motion to Revise” granting the motion in part and denying in part. The court denied

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Best Essays

    Rolon v Commonwealth Unemployment Comp. Bd.of Review, 59 Pa. Commw. 378, 429 A.2d 1256 (1981).…

    • 4200 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Yes, the district court’s judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to grant the government’s request for injunctive relief.…

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding no abuse of discretion in the reduction of the duration of a covenant not to compete against appellee, former employee, where hardship to appellee by reinstatement of the expired injunction was a more onerous burden than was required to protect the business of appellant.…

    • 322 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    (3) Decision: The decision of the District Court was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.…

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Harrison V

    • 852 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The court case Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville involves a dispute concerning the employment of John Harrison (plaintiff) at a company called Benchmark Electronics Huntsville Inc (BEHI). Aerotek is a company that helps with placing temporary workers at BEHI and they assigned the plaintiff to work at the company as a Debug Tech. The plaintiff suffers from epilepsy, but he takes barbiturates to help keep his condition under control and it was determined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this isn't considered a disability as noted by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The company screens their temporary employees if their supervisor suggests them for permanent positions and with a request made by his supervisor Don Anthony, on May 19, 2006, the plaintiff submitted an application for permanent employment. The plaintiff consented to a drug test that came back positive as noted by Lena Williams who was employed in the human resources department of the company.…

    • 852 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cooper V. Austin

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages

    * Greer filed a motion for summary judgment in October, 1990, seeking to have Austin's case dismissed on the grounds that it was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (1986), because it was brought more than two years from the entry of the order admitting the will to probate. The trial court denied this motion.…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case of Auto Workers V. Johnson Controls, the Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against Johnson Control in federal district courts over illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. The district court entered a summary judgment for Johnson Controls. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, leading the plaintiff to then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. J. Blackmun delivered the opinion of the court in which Marshall, Stevens, O’Connor, and Souter joined. J. White filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, in which Rehnquist and Kennedy joined. J. Scalia filed an opinion concurring in judgment. Case was decided in March 20, 1991.…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Eric J V

    • 304 Words
    • 1 Page

    Conclusion: The judgment in favor of the respondents is affirmed. Because we affirm the judgment, the protective cross appeal is moot.…

    • 304 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The respondent “Holmes” was employed by appellant Hotel “San Remo” as a slot hostess. Holmes was denied unemployment benefits due to work related misconduct. Holmes appealed this and the district court ended up reversing the denial of unemployment benefits because it held that substantial evidence did not support NESD's decision. This case is “San Remo” and NESD's now appeal the court.…

    • 416 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The legal issue in this case is the EEOC alleges Convergys failed to accommodate Demirelli's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At District Court, the jury found for the plaintiffs (EEOC and Demirelli), in that Convergys was in violation of the ADA and did not provide reasonable accommodations, even though Demirelli did request to have extra time to return from lunch, in which Convergys denied. The district court denied Convergys's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In the Court of Appeals, Convergys argued an employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate a disabled employee who has not requested a specific, reasonable accommodation, however, the Court disagreed. The employee's duty under the interactive process is to make the employer aware of the need for an accommodation and provide any details concerning his disability so that the employer will understand the nature of the disability and why the employee needs an accommodation. It is then up to the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation.…

    • 506 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The court held that as the injury complained of was injury to the company and not to the members. As such the members could not take action. Only the company had the right to sue.…

    • 280 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The case evolves around the unethical monopolistic actions taken by Microsoft to achieve monopoly. Some major facts in the case are given below –…

    • 1584 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The court dismissed the claim and held that when a company is wronged by its directors it is only the company that has standing to sue. In effect the court established two rules. Firstly, the "proper plaintiff rule" is that a wrong done to the company may be vindicated by the company alone. Secondly, the "majority rule principle" states that if the alleged wrong can be confirmed or ratified by a of members in a general meeting, then the court will not interfere,…

    • 5997 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Clientlogic vs Castro

    • 3262 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Respondent was employed by petitioner ClientLogic Philippines, Inc. (now known as shall hereafter be referred to as SITEL on February 14, 2005 as a call center agent for its Bell South Account. After six (6) months, he was promoted to the Mentorposition, and thereafter to the Coachposition. A Coachis a team supervisor who is in charge of dealing with customer complaints which could not be resolved by call center agents. In June 2006, he was transferred to the Green Dot Account.…

    • 3262 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    “WHEREFORE, finding the Motion to Dismiss Appeal to be meritorious, the same is granted. The appeal is DISMISSED.…

    • 4711 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays