Case 1: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green‚ the Supreme Court holds that a charging party can prove unlawful discrimination indirectly by showing‚ for example‚ in a hiring case that: (1) the charging party is a member of a Title VII protected group; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) the job was not offered to him or her; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. If the plaintiff can prove these four elements‚ the employer must
Premium Law United States Discrimination
younger workers due to stereotypes surrounding older workers’ productivity and cost. In case of Zimpfer V. Palm Beach County case‚ Mr. Bryce Zimpfer applied for the position of employee relations manager. However‚ the department filled the position with Mr. Brad Merriman‚ aged 33. Although Brad had less experience than Bryce‚ he was appointed as the new relations manager. Nonetheless‚ this is a case of age based discrimination. Since Brad has
Premium
Contribution Required Of Excess Insurer Where It Did Not Consent To Settlement In February‚ the California Court of Appeal ruled in Doe Run Resources Corp v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York that an excess insurer did not have to contribute to the settlement where the insured failed to obtain its consent before signing the settlement agreement. The case involved a complaint filed in 2001 by residents of Herculaneum‚ Missouri alleging that the defendant mining-company‚ Doe Run’s‚ lead and cadium smelting
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Law
Korematsu V. United States was a court case during the time of World War II. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor‚ people of Japanese descent were considered threats. As a result‚ Franklin Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 on February 19‚ 1942. This Order demanded that each and every person of Japanese descent be moved to internment camps‚ regardless of citizenship. Fred Korematsu‚ a Japanese American citizen‚ refused to leave his home to go to the internment camp. Therefore‚ he was convicted
Premium United States World War II President of the United States
Judicial Trend • Pakala Narayan Swamy v. King Emperor In the present case‚ the person accused was married to one of the daughters of the Diwan of Pithapuram Estate. The deceased Nukharaju was a peon in the Pithapuram estate. In 1936‚ the accused and daughter of Diwan who was married to accused visited Pithapuram. It was claimed in the facts of the prosecution’s case was that they borrowed Rs. 3000 from Nukharaju while they were staying in the Pithapuram. After some days‚ the accused and his wife
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court of the United States Consciousness
In this case‚ former sales managers for State Room had accused the company of not paying them for the extra duties undertaken. The court held that these employees had no authority when it comes to the setting pieces or even enters into contracts unless the management has negotiated the favorable terms (Breger & Edles‚ 2015). The court further decided to rely on a previous decision to arrive at the new decision. The case under reference was Reich v John Alden Life Insurance Co
Premium Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Working time
Section A Question 1) a) In the case of Donohue v Stevenson[1]‚ Donohue won the case. The ratio decidendi in the case was that the liability of negligence did not depend on the contractual relationship and that Stevenson owed the duty of care to Donohue as a manufacturer‚ not to cause foreseeable injuries to the users of the products. As there was an owed duty‚ Stevenson failed to practice the appropriate standard of care and in turn‚ the negligent act had caused the injuries to Donohue. Therefore
Premium Contract Contract law Tort
8th Circuit hasn’t expressly ruled on this issue‚ district courts in said circuit have borrowed from Courts in the 8th Circuit have dismissed claims of general anxiety and stress‚ even where the plaintiff’s injuries are more particularized. In Amburgy v. Express Scripts‚ Inc.‚ the plaintiff alleged that he and other members of the class had spent “considerable time and money protecting themselves” after the company’s inadequate security measures lead to the theft and ransom of customers’ personal information
Premium Law United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
REAL ESTATE AS A POPULAR INVESTMENT OPTION SIMS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Real estate is "Property consisting of land and the buildings on it‚ along with its natural resources such as crops‚ minerals‚ or water; immovable property of this nature; an interest vested in this; (also) an item of real property; (more generally) buildings or housing in general. Also: the business of real estate; the profession of buying‚ selling‚ or renting land‚ buildings or housing." A real estate investment trust
Premium Investment Real estate investment trust Real estate
Bravo Fernandez v. United States is a court case that deals with Double Jeopardy. Double Jeopardy can be defined as “the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense (dictionary.com). ” Bravo Fernandez v. United States was argued on October 4th‚ 2016‚ because of an incident that took place in May of 2005. Mr. Fernandez‚ whom is the president of a private security firm in Puerto Rico‚ and Hector Martinez-Maldonado who is a member of the Senate. Both traveled to Las Vegas to watch a boxing match
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Law