Case Study: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc. Joshua Weisman Webster University HRMG 5700 QD F2 In the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc.‚ Joseph Oncale was the victim of repeated harassment‚ sexual‚ physical and mental‚ from at least three members of the work crew‚ of which two had a supervisory position over him. When Oncale brought his complaints to the supervisors‚ they took no noticeable actions against the harassers and‚ after he had experienced
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Pleading Court
employee unreasonably failed to avoid the harm‚ the employer will be liable” (EEOC‚ 1999). 2. The cases Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth apply to the current case because of many reasons. In Ellerth‚ “the Court concluded that there was no tangible
Premium Employment Law Tort law
CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States
reasonably to enhance the contractual objectiveness of a case. Judges use the grounds of how a ‘reasonable’ observer would interpret the facts to determine whether the elements of a contract are evident within an agreement to then make it legally binding‚ and whether the contractual performance of the parties was acted in good faith. This in effect allows for more procedural fairness‚ taking into account all matters within judicial review. Within this case‚ Robb J reasons that there is a legally binding contract
Premium
synonym of common law: general rule. In the case of Child V. Desormeaux‚ it was proven by the courts that the social hosts did not own a duty of care to the people injured by the defendant’s actions. “I conclude that as a general rule‚ a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol and that the courts below correctly dismissed the appellants’ action.” The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the case of Child v. Desormeaux supports the current common
Premium Law Tort Duty of care
of hot water V. amygdalina leaves extract (500 mg/kg) reduced blood glucose concentration of both normoglycaemic and hyperglycaemic rats induced by alloxan (Osinubi‚ 2007). 2.4.2.3 Antioxidant activity Several studies have shown that V. amygdalina possess antioxidant activity (Yeap et al.‚ 2010). Ethanol and aqueous extracts showed good antioxidant activity using different models (Ayoola et al.‚ 2008; Owolabi et al.‚ 2008). Igile et al. (1994) characterizes flavonoids occurring in V. amygdalina leaves
Premium Diabetes mellitus Blood sugar Insulin
this case was later appealed in 2010 by Mr Homer. Heard in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal‚ the judgements given by Maurice Kay LJ‚ Richards LJ and then Mummery AJ all affirmed the previous decision‚ contending that Mr Homer’s case was not one of particular disadvantage‚ but one of a claim for more favourable treatment on account of age. Issues/Law- What does the law assume and why? – have I covered law relating to justification and discrimination? The law influencing this case/of which
Premium Violence Nuclear power Electricity generation
2.1 (a) In the decision of District Court of New South Wales‚ Appellant (Ms Derrick) owed the Respondent (Rosannie Cheung) a duty of care‚ as she was driving at such a speed that it was beyond her ability to stop the car in time and notice that a child which suddenly darted from one of the parked cars. In addition‚ nearby shops and houses combined with the date‚ Saturday morning shortly before Christmas‚ should have alerted Ms Derrick that small children might be playing around‚ so she needed to
Premium Law Tort Negligence
In June of 1966‚ the outcome of the trial - Miranda v. Arizona declared that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when being placed under arrest‚ bringing about the creation of the Miranda Rights and forever altering all criminal arrests and police conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases‚ the defendant was questioned by police officers‚ detectives‚ or a prosecuting attorney
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States Police
Case Name: National Legal Services Authority (Petitioner) v Union of India & Ors. (Respondent). Court Name: Supreme Court of India. Bench: J.‚ K.S. Radhakrishnan & J.‚ A.K. Sikri. Date of Decision: April 15‚ 2014. Citation: AIR 2014 SC 1863. Statement of Facts: 1. The National Legal Services Authority filed a writ petition no. 400 of 2012 seeking relief that Hijras/ Eunuchs/ Transgenders (herein after refer as TG) be given legal status as ‘third gender’ with legal and constitutional provision.
Premium Human rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights Law