Case Analysis : Mckennon V. Nashville Banner Publishing Co Essay

Identify and describe the specific issues Maalick encountered in the workplace. Do the actions of other workers at Treton represent discrimination and harassment? What elements of law are important for Treton to consider?

Belton, R. (2004). Employment discrimination law: cases and materials on equality in the workplace. Thomson/West

In 1974, the Southeastern promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad case came to the Supreme Court. This came to the court because they believed it violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. V. Conrad it was argued that Southeastern Promotions was stripped of their freedom of speech because they were denied the use of the Tivoli Theater in Chattanooga, Tennessee to put on the rock musical Hair. The Supreme Court had to uphold the First Amendment while still allowing the theater to keep their reputation of being a family establishment.

Herein will begin with an overview and introduction from personal knowledge of DixieLands Glory, LLC; a small family owned and operated business for the purpose of owning and managing rental properties. The company was initially operated as Warf’s Rentals; in 2003 the business was renamed and incorporated to become DixieLands Glory, LLC. The business is operated from a small office located in the family’s home, which is located in Linden, Tennessee. DixieLands Glory owns, operate, and manage approximately eighty-five rental units ranging from single-family homes to 4-plexes and mobile home parks. The properties that the company owns are mostly located in the states of Tennessee and Alabama. Of this, about 50 percent are located in the family’s hometown of Linden, Tennessee, with the remainder being located in two other Tennessee counties, and Decatur, Alabama.

This paper has gone over the lawsuit that was filed by the EEOC. It also went over who the EEOC is and what their role is in the lawsuit. It also went over how the EEOC’s press release and the Minneapolis/ St. Paul Business Journal articles different. I have learned that

This case analysis will covers the impact of the McKennon V. Nashville Banner Publishing Co Supreme Court Of The United States Decision in any legal dispute regulated by Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and others regulation that covers the elimination of discrimination in the workplace, the contribution to payback calculation procedure in this type of legal suit, as well as impact in the workplace environment. The Court held in McKennon established that the employer is

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Warford v. Lexington News-Herald is an example of how the court defined an assistant basketball coach at the University of Pittsburgh as a private figure. Reggie Warford complained about allegations of recruiting improperties that he committed as an assistant basketball coach. The issue at hand was originally posted in the 1985 Lexington Herald, but were reprinted in 1986 under a special NCAA reprint publication entitled 1985: A Year of Crisis in College Athletics. The 1986 publication is the source of the libel dispute.

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Crown Awards is a retailer of awards and trophies sold through mail order catalogs and via the Internet. Crown designed and sold a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. Discount Trophy is one of Crown’s competitors, and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crown’s Spin Trophy. Crown requested that Discount discontinue the sale of the alleged copy, and when Discount refused, Crown filed suit in the Southern District of New York.

During a trial the plaintiff will attempt to prove their case by the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact. The evidence usually includes testimony of persons involved; witnesses as well as physical things such as pictures, documentation/records, recordings etc…

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

During the economic turn-down of 2009 the EEOC started receiving more complaints about age discrimination which in turn lead them to have hearings about the impact the recession had on older workers. During their research, they discovered the age hiring practice of Texas Roadhouse that suggested a national wide practice of discriminating against workers 40 years or older. The EEOC tried mediation in their attempts to reach a settlement through a conciliation process. That conciliation process failed and the EEOC filed suit in 2011. This suit represented the largest age discrimination suit ever brought to trial and the defense for Texas Roadhouse suggested a substantial over reach by the EEOC.

This paper will outline a complaint process and illustrate the civil litigation that could follow if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, through mediation and arbitration cannot resolve a charge. The complaint is based on a scenario of an employee, named John. John works for a private sector business and he wishes to lodge a complaint of discrimination against the company he works for. This paper will explain the steps that are taken, from the beginning with the (EEOC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will continue explaining the process by illustrating the civil litigation steps from the state level to the highest level of the United States Supreme Courts.

There is also the matter of comments made to David from his supervisor regarding Jason’s future with the company and a comment directly related to David’s age which will be difficult to defend under the circumstances surrounding recent publicity with Wal-Mart and Lockheed Martin. These comments are blunt violations of the EEOC’s enforcement of age discrimination in the workplace and will provide further evidence that age was a considering factor in Jason’s promotion.

Idearc, a subsidiary of Verizon, fired four male advertising salesmen working in Massachusetts who were over the age of 40 just short of the time when the employees would be able to collect their pensions. The basis for the firings was advertising sales performance that was ranked every six months by net gain year over year. An important consideration in the case is that the cut off for determining poor performing advertising salesmen was changed several times for unclear reasons. The case states only that, "The goal was to terminate between 10 and 15 percent of sales people every year. By 2005, it was clear that far too few employees were being let go, so the agreement was changed." Between 2002 and 2005, the employment agreement between union and Idearc Media stipulated that those employees ranking in the bottom 30 percent by sales advertising results would be terminated. But in 2005, the cutoff for poor ranking sales advertising employees was changed to the bottom 70 percent of sales advertising results. In 2007, the four plaintiffs were fired from their positions. Claiming age discrimination under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the terminated employees filed suit against Idearc, but they did not prevail at district court or following their appeal to the First Circuit court for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.