Berman V Neo @ Ogilvy Llc Case Summary

The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and declared that the City was responsible for the employer’s action based on Title VII which was subject to an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court found that the work environment was hostile and it was attributable to Silverman and Terry’s behavior. The Supreme Court also found that the employer is vicariously liable for some tortious conduct on behalf of the supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman.

BARBARA J. O'NEIL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CRANE CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). Justice Scalia labeled Saint Mary’s Center v. Hicks case “pretext-plus” approach. Other courts, commentators, and analysts originally also classified the term pretext-plus. The approach of this case is similar to “pretext-only” approach from the case McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green of 1973 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). The employee must develop a discrimination case and accepted as correct and proved

The SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance will delve into the materiality of the litigation and what was the
reason for omission of the same from the prior year’s 10-K, when disclosure should have been necessary as well. There was no 8-K filed about the matter also which is odd given that a class action lawsuit of this magnitude should be considered a significant

Employees started to exchange their frustration about Cruz-Moore’s criticism. A director of HUB soon followed up with the Facebook post. Cruz-Moore commented on Cole-Rivera’s post “stop with your lies about me”, She then brought the entire Facebook exchange to the executive director’s attention (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). The employees who were involved were terminated for bulling and harassment of Cruz-Moore. Cruz-Moore had suffered a heart attack as a result of this incident. The NLRB ruled that HUB violated the NLRA by discharging the five employees, because the employees were engaged in protected concerted activities for the “purpose of mutual aid or protection” under Section 7.167 (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). Employers were ordered to reinstate employees with back pay because the discharges were motivated by the employee’s protected concerted activity.

In the case of Sherbert against Verner et al., members of South Carolina Employment Security Commission, et al. (1963), Sherbert’s employer denied her unemployment benefits because

After hearings on June 23rd and August 12th of 2015, Judge Richard Berman ruled to vacate Tom Brady’s four-game suspension on the morning of September 3rd . In his court document, Berman makes the following statement: For the reasons stated herein, the Management Council’s motion to confirm the arbitration award [ECF No. 4] is denied and the Player’s Association’s motion to vacate the arbitration award [ECF No. 28] is granted. Brady’s four-game suspension is vacated, effective immediately. The Clerk is respectfully requested to close cases 15 Civ. 5916 and 15 Civ. 5982. On October 27th, the NFL filed a 61-page brief in court that appealed Judge Berman’s decision in the Deflategate case. The NFL stated the Commissioner concluded that: “(1) Mr.

This case resolved the ambiguity of definition of supervisor resulting in differing opinions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742(1998) and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

The 1983 film Silkwood, was inspired by Karen Silkwood of the monumental Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. (81-2159) whistleblowing case. Silkwood, a union activist and whistleblower who worked at the Cimarron, Oklahoma Kerr-McGee Nuclear Fuel Processing facility from August, 1972 through November 1974. While the activist was investigating alleged wrongdoing, specifically plutonium contaminations on her body and throughout her house, she was killed in a suspicious auto accident. The case portrayed in film shows implications for modern whistleblowers, set a precedent and was essential in creating proper protections for whistleblowers. This paper will analyze the context of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. in modern day whistleblowing.

If you want to report potential wrongdoing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, you are protected by the SEC Whistleblower Program. The program, created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act, offers employment protections as well as a monetary incentive to report a tip to the SEC. You don't have to work for a company to report possible fraud, however, finance, compliance and accounting employees are more likely to have access to specific transactions that are potential violations.

World Color Press, Inc. it was a worker’s compensation claim which involved allegations of federal law violations. The plaintiff in this case was the senior vice president and chief financial officer was the defendant in the case. The senior vice president was hired in 1974 and fired 1982 in which he alleged was a retaliatory discharge. He was opposed to the company’s accounting practices and suggested it violated federal securities law. His claim was based on general accounting practices and principles. He noted that these principles would have overstated and inflated the income in 1981 and asset valuation of the company. The court agreed with the plaintiff on his claims as well another section of federal securities law which states it is illegal to make false statements to the federal government. This was made clear in mandated public policy. During this case the Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. was cited this case involved federal regulations on safety of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Palmateer v. International Harvester Co which reported alleged criminal activity to the local police. The mandated public policy help verify the federal laws been broken in each case. The vice president was a consider a high level manger and the defendant tried state the case that the retaliatory discharge should only apply to low level managers. Under the federal guidelines everyone should be treated equally and fairly no matter their position in the company. The courts did not agree with the defendant because he was classifying the employees which is also

Support for the decision of Case 02-RC-143012, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York and Graduate Workers of Columbia– GWC, UAW

The Dodd- Frank law on whistle-blowing bounty program is an upgrade from the Sarbanes- Oxley. The Sarbanes – Oxley whistle -blower program protected employees from getting retaliated upon by their employers when they report misconduct within the company they are employed. Dodd- Frank law took is a step further, an employee who reports financial misconduct are entitled to receive 10 percent to 30 percent of the fines and settlements if the conviction is upheld and the penalties exceed $1 million dollars (Ferrell, 112, 2013). The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010 (Ferrell, pg. 110, 2013). The focal mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to make markets for

Whistleblowers in the United States are individuals who expose organizations in illicit or dishonest activities. There are generally two views people have concerning whistleblowers: They are either considered snitches (performing acts of espionage) or they are considered martyrs (acting as a type of vigilante informing the public of wrongdoing). There have been many controversial cases in the past decade over informants such as Edward Snowden (exposing NSA data collection of citizens), Bradley Manning (responsible for leaking Iraqi military secrets), and Thomas Drake (NSA personnel leaking counterterrorism information and misconduct), some labeling them as traitors and others labeling them as saints. Some state that they weren’t

In Tameny,7 the plaintiff, alleging both contract and tort causes of action, brought suit after being terminated for refusing "to yield to his employer's pressure" to engage in acts constituting state and federal antitrust violations. (Id. at pp. 170-171, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330.) The trial court sustained a demurrer to the tort claims. The Supreme Court reversed on the basis that "an employer's obligation to refrain from discharging an employee who refuses to commit a criminal act does not depend upon any express or implied ` "promise[s] set forth in the [employment] contract"' [citation], but rather reflects a duty imposed by law upon all employers in order to implement the fundamental public policies embodied in the state's penal statutes." (Id. at p. 176, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d