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
Mohamed Saada. Coke vs. Pepsi War Overview: In 1985 Coke has introduced a new Coke product replacing its old Coke Formula that has been around for almost 100 years. The reaction has been outrageous by the consumers who resisted the new Coke forcing the company to go back in its decision and sell the two products together. My opinion is that the mistake was partially being a wrong strategic call and partially a mistake in interpreting the market research date. On the strategic call‚ Coke was losing
Premium Qualitative research Marketing Brand
Coke v. Pepsi – 5 Forces Analysis Industry concentrate produces High intensity (depends on price/advertising cost/ high number of substitutes(low calorie drinks/no carb drinks/ not carbonated drinks like orange juice) Pepsi products /Coke products New Entrants (barriers/rivalry) High Intensity-Brand recognition dominant market/ patents on style and colors Network relationships & high cost of entry established such as distribution‚ warehouse‚ bottlers‚ and shelf-location high marketing
Premium Coca-Cola Cola
[GRN 110249 August 21‚ 1997] ALFREDO TANO‚ BALDOMERO TANO‚ DANILO TANO‚ ROMUALDO TANO‚ TEOCENES MIDELLO‚ ANGEL DE MESA‚ EULOGIO TREMOCHA‚ FELIPE ONGONION‚ JR.‚ ANDRES LINIJAN‚ ROBERT LIM‚ VIRGINIA LIM‚ FELIMON DE MESA‚ GENEROSO ARAGON‚ TEODORICO ANDRE‚ ROMULO DEL ROSARIO‚ CHOLITO ANDRE‚ ERICK MONTANO‚ ANDRES OLIVA‚ VITTORIO SALVADOR‚ LEOPOLDO ARAGON‚ RAFAEL RIBA‚ ALEJANDRO LEONILA‚ JOSE DAMACINTO‚ RAMIRO MANAEG‚ RUBEN MARGATE‚ ROBERTO REYES‚ DANILO PANGARUTAN‚ NOE GOLPAN‚ ESTANISLAO ROMERO‚ NICANOR
Premium Trial court Wound
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
been one of the most successful product launches in our history. In 2009‚ we sold more than 600 million cases globally. As of September 2010‚ Coca-Cola Zero is available in more than 130 countries. Brand Positioning The soft drinks market is dominated by 3 household Coca Cola‚ PepsiCo and Dr Pepper Snapple. Coke Zero is successful because it was carried to new category – sugar free coke and be first to get into the prospect’s mind. It is filled a need for an underserved consumer -- young adult
Premium Coca-Cola Pittsburgh Steelers Soft drink
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
Preparing the Workforce Among the vastly growing diversity challenges Coca Cola continued to face statewide and globally to preparing their workforce‚ understanding the culture and overcoming major crisis in Belgium was one of the most challenging. After a mass recall in mid 1999‚ in which‚ Children at six schools in Belgium had complained of headache‚ nausea‚ vomiting and shivering after drinking Coca-Cola’s beverages‚ leading to their hospitalizations. Most of them reported an unusual
Premium Coca-Cola Diet Coke Thums Up
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