Goodrich V. Home Depot Case Analysis

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

How much business risk does American Home Products face? How much financial risk would American Home Products face at each of the proposed levels of debt shown in case Exhibit 3? How much potential value, if any, can American Home Products create for its shareholders at each of the proposed levels of debt?

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

The company offered inconsistent versions of why Mr. Gill was terminated and who did the termination. They were indifferent to Mr. Gill’s concerns and did nothing to address those employees engaging in blatant racial harassment even after other black employees complained and, most damaging, the company retaliated against Mr. Gill when he complained by terminating his

Plaintiff, Deborah Burke, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Strickland Watson Pierce, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should not be dismissed because she exhausted all the administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and being terminated during the investigation. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corr., 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001); Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2008). Further, the conduct she suffered in the workplace was sufficiently severe to qualify as a sexually hostile environment. The Court should deny the motion.

A fortiori, the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 350, 100 Cal. Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.)

The Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. case, we are introduced to Peter Oiler who worked for 20 years at Winn-Dixie, a top Fortune 500 company with more than 1,100 grocery stores in 14 Southern states. In 1999, he told his supervisors that he is a cross-dresses off the job, he was fired.

Derrick L. Kincade, a former software implementation consultant for PROS, Inc. ("PROS"), claims the company violated chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code by (1) withdrawing an alleged promotion he had received based on his race (African American); (2) creating a hostile work environment based on two racially offensive notes he anonymously received at work; (3) retaliating against him for having filed an EEOC charge of discrimination by not allowing him to continue to work from home and by requiring a doctor's note for an absence; and (4) after securing other employment and giving two weeks' notice of resignation, by constructively discharging him. PROS is entitled to summary judgment on these claims under Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 166a(c) and 166a(i)

The definition of exceeds authorized access provided in the CFAA does not suggest it applies to misuse, “[b]y its plain terms, this definition also speaks to access, not use.” JCBHoldings NY, LLC v. Pakter, 931 F. Supp.2d 514, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Ninth Circuit fittingly adopted a narrow interpretation of the CFAA in Nosal. 676 F.3d at 863. There, the defendant (Nosal) resigned from his job and convinced some of his former colleagues to give him confidential information using their authorized access to help him start his own competing business. Id. at 856. Company policy forbade disclosure of confidential information. Id. The district court dismissed the claim, reasoning “[t]here is simply no way to read [the definition of ‘exceeds authorized access’] to incorporate corporate policies governing use of information unless the word alter is interpreted to mean misappropriate,” as “[s]uch an interpretation would defy the plain meaning of the word alter, as well as common sense.” Id.

In the case of Varner v. National Super Markets, 94 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1110 (1997), Ms. Varner was severely harassed by a coworker and her fiance reported the harassment to the manger of the store (Walsh, 2013). Since it was stated in the company policy that the victim was report the harassment themselves to the human resource department, the manager did not do anything about the reports (Walsh, 2013). Sexual harassment is widespread and up to half of women in the workforce experience it at some point, but it is rare to have a formal complaint filed (Vijayasiri, 2008).

In response to the botched Oklahoma execution of Charles Warner, the Glossip vs Gross court case, and the fact that Governor Nikki R. Haley called for the death penalty the defense team of Dylann Roof, who was accused of killing nine black people in a 2015 South Carolina church shooting, is challenging the death penalty’s constitutionality because the prosecutors declined his request to serve life in prison without parole. Roof’s defense team argues that nobody can be lawfully executed under the constitution no matter what crime they committed. Multiples Justices, including Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, stated that it might be time to review the death penalty to see if it is actually constitutional. Breyer also stated that the

This is an unfair labor practice charge that the Regional Director’s agent Holly Beaverstock they will be dismissing. Our position is that there is a conflict in the evidence regarding whether Francis was terminated in retaliation for his lawful protected activities. There are two (2) prior ULP complaint’s that have been issued which directly affect Paul Francis. One (1) is the Charge that Employee’s where prohibited from discussing Union’s during company time and the other is in May when Francis was sent home for the day discriminatorily pursuant to the Complaint that was issued in 152409 and 152432.

Religious rights of the individual have always been an issue because of the very diverse world we live in. This causes issues for the courts who then have to make a decision in regards to something very personal to people. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores the issue lies in the religious rights of a private corporation not wanting to provide certain forms of birth control because it violates their personal beliefs as devout Christians. The Supreme Court should not have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because this sets the precedent of allowing certain individuals to be exempt from laws and regulations imposed on other corporations. But not every justice agrees, Ginsburg

“In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a five-Justice majority held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires of federal laws that burden religious exercise (Gedicks 1).” Burwell means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this case of Hobby Lobby versus Burwell, it is accused that the government has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby refused to provide insurance that covers birth control because it violates their religious beliefs. It is said that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, INC)” unless the government

A combination of business risk and financial risk shows the risk of an organization’s future return on equity. Business risk is related to make a firm’s operation without any debt whereas financial risk requires that the firm’s common stockholders make a decision to finance it with debt. Business risk can be evaluated volatility in earnings and profits (coefficient of variation of returns on assets and of operating profits). A measure of business risk is also asset beta or unlevered beta. In case of AHP, it is 1.2 (βa) which is very low signifying low business risk for the firm.