THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Ngày đăng: 06/02/2018, 09:34
Xem thêm:
TỪ KHÓA LIÊN QUAN
Mục lục
Chapter 24 Case Hypothetical Ben Kerrigan and Allison LaCroix have worked together for five years. Although he has kept it to himself, Ben adores Allison, hanging on every word she says and watching every move she makes. Ben feels considerable guilt for his amorous emotions, since he has been married to his wife Jeannie for seven years, and since Allison is also married. From Allison’s perspective, her association with Ben is purely professional, although she does consider him a dear friend, enjoying his sense of humor, sharing with him many of her daily experiences, and consoling in him when life is unkind. On Friday morning, Ben asks Allison to join him for a quick lunch, stating “You drive, and I’ll buy.” They choose a local delicatessen, and are seated at a “table for two.” Aware that life is short, and weakened by five years of keeping a torturous secret, Ben confesses all to Allison over turkey subs and tomato soup. Ben proclaims, “Allison, I am tired of living a lie. You are not just the woman of my dreams, you are real, and I want you for my own. I worship you, and I want to share my life with you. You are the most beautiful and intelligent woman I have ever met, and I am willing to leave Jeannie for you. I hate to hurt your husband, but I love you more than he does. As far as work goes, we can try our best to keep it a secret; if not, I am willing to find another job. Tell me how you feel, Allison.” At first, Allison is speechless; her face then reddens, and she finds the words: “Ben, I thought you were my friend, but instead, you are a lustful stalker. I feel violated. For crying out loud, Ben, we are both married. Don’t you understand the true meaning of “family values?” Allison immediately rushes from the restaurant, leaving Ben to find a cab, and Ben wonders if he has said too much. The following Monday, Ben is called into the office of his supervisor, Alex Friedman. Friedman informs Ben that much to his regret, Allison has filed a sexual harassment claim against him, and that although she would like to resolve the matter internally, she will file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if the incident is not addressed satisfactorily. Friedman has scheduled an internal hearing in two weeks. The supervisor states that if Allison’s claim holds, Ben will be terminated in light of the company’s “zero-tolerance” anti-sexual harassment policy. Do Ben’s statements constitute sexual harassment?
Chapter 24 Case Hypothetical and Ethical Dilemma Scooters Restaurant is a popular “dive” in Key Largo, Florida with twenty-nine employees. It primarily attracts male bikers en route to sunny, sub-tropical Key West. Although the testosterone-charged motorcyclists claim they stop at Scooters for its delicious buffalo wings and adult beverages, their wives and girlfriends believe the real reason they patronize the restaurant is the wait staff. Scooters only hires “drop-dead” gorgeous female waitresses ranging in age from eighteen to twenty-eight, with uniforms of white, midriff-baring halter tops and key lime-green “short” shorts. Male waiters need not apply at Scooters. Five (5) male plaintiffs who were denied wait-staff employment at Scooters have filed a civil lawsuit against the restaurant, alleging gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs uniformly claim that although they were offered significantly lower-paying cook and dishwasher positions at Scooters, they were denied wait-staff positions on the basis of their gender. The eatery has defended on the basis of the “bona fide occupational qualification” (“BFOQ”) defense. The restaurant alleges that its female-only wait staff hiring practice is reasonably necessary for the success of its business, based on the contention that its typical customer (a burly, bearded man in bike leather) expects to be served only by an attractive waitress. Is Scooters Restaurant liable for gender discrimination, or should the court accept the defendant’s “BFOQ” defense?
Chapter 24 Case Hypothetical and Ethical Dilemma James Donovan (“J.D.”) Cuthbert, J. D., one year removed from law school and practicing at the St. Louis firm Gibson, Smith and McGwire, P.L.L.C., is on the “fast-track” for partnership. Cuthbert was a prized hire for Gibson, Smith, and McGwire; with an imposing physical presence (6 feet, two inches tall and 210 pounds,) a disarming smile, and enough ambition for an entire courtroom of first-year attorneys, the “grapevine” surmises that Cuthbert will be offered a partnership in four years, far sooner than the standard wait period of seven years. Summer has arrived, and the Gibson firm has made plans to field its best-ever recreational softball team. The firm’s “legal nine” competes annually in the The Bar Association of Greater St. Louis Softball League. Attorneys participating in the league compete just as vigorously on the field as they do in the courtroom, and law firms strive to earn the annual “bragging rights” associated with a league championship. A senior partner at Gibson, Smith and McGwire, Tom Hackman, has recruited Cuthbert to play first base for the team. J.D. was at first reluctant to play (after all, the practice of law is a “jealous mistress,”) but he eventually agrees, realizing that impressing the partnership does not occur exclusively in the courtroom. The Gibson team excels, powering its way to the bar association softball championship game against an impressive foe, The Micah A. Mayo Personal Injury Law Firm. In the bottom of the 9th inning of a tied championship game, with no one on base and two outs, “The Mighty Cuthbert” comes to bat. He swings for the fence, and drives the softball to within five feet of a home run. As he reaches third base, Hackman (the team’s third base coach) signals Cuthbert to stay, but he heads for home instead; glory is only ninety feet away, an “inside-the-park” homerun would only add to his legend, and extra innings come with no guarantees. Playing catcher for the Mayo firm is Albert Flaherty, an imposing figure himself; at 6 feet, five inches tall and 230 pounds, Flaherty is determined to use his height, weight and mass to save the game for his employer. Cuthbert and Flaherty collide, a cloud of dust surrounds home plate, and a sickening “crack” and scream are heard by all in attendance. Cuthbert’s right leg is severely broken, and he is out. Reasonable minds might differ in terms of which hurts worse. The Gibson firm loses after 10 innings, and the biggest question back at the office is “What would have happened if Cuthbert had stayed on third?” Cuthbert is hospitalized; his medical bills and days out of work are accumulating. Is Gibson, Smith and McGwire, P.L.L.C. legally liable for Cuthbert’s injury? Is the firm ethically liable for Cuthbert’s injury?
Chapter 24 Case Hypothetical Jerry Weir is a loading dock worker for American Beauty Supplies, Inc. Jerry’s supervisor, Bob Garcia, is suspicious that Jerry is a drug user. Although the company does not have a dress code for its loading dock employees, Jerry’s attire has given Bob what he believes to be cause for concern. Today, for example, Jerry is wearing a t-shirt of his favorite 1960s rock-and-roll band, The Appreciative Deceased. The t-shirt has a picture of The Appreciative Deceased’s mascot, the “Pooh-Bah Man,” along with the words “Keep on Tokin’.” He is also wearing a “peace-sign” necklace, tattered blue jeans, and sandals. Add to his attire Jerry’s long, curly hair and his disheveled beard, and Bob believes his subordinate is a human tribute to the “60s” generation. Bob has decided to give Jerry a drug test to determine whether his charge is under the influence of illicit substances. Bob believes he has “reasonable suspicion” to do so based on Jerry’s appearance, and the fact that courts have generally upheld the right of employers to drug-test employees. Based on these circumstances, does Bob Garcia have the legal right to require that Jerry Weir submit to a drug test?
Federal Employment Discrimination Laws
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964, As Amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991)
“Disparate Treatment” Versus “Disparate Impact” Discrimination
Requirements For Establishing A “Disparate Treatment” Discrimination Case
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1987
Defenses to Claims Under Title VII of The Civil Rights Act
TÀI LIỆU CÙNG NGƯỜI DÙNG
TÀI LIỆU LIÊN QUAN