O Connor V. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.

Question #3: What is the legal basis for the EEOC to hold that JBS-SWIFT had violated the employee’ civil rights?

Thus, the two main requirements for a § 1983 claim are (1) “state actors” and (2) “acting under the color of law.” “Color of law” has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as the "[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law." U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941).

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

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

In this statement of argument, we will prove that W.R. Grace & Company, Beatrice Foods Company, and UniFirst Corporation are innocent from the chemical perspective of the case. We will look at Woburn’s chemical industry history to see they type

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 case states that Davis did not use Ross as a reference; however, her name was listed on the letter giving the negative connotation that Davis’s work or personal habit was offensive to Ross and this is the reason that Ross no longer employs Davis. This would not be true, in this case for Davis- she voluntarily left Ross’s employment. She was not fired- Davis’s name should not have been on Ross’s letter.

Cowen, 165 F.3d 154, 162 (2d Cir. 1999); Id. at 154 (noting that the judge was mistaken when he presented the Pickering balancing test to the jury to decide)—don’t know if this belongs here?. When an employee’s job involves “confidentiality, policymaking, or public contact,” it is more likely that the state will have a large interest in firing them for statements that would offend their employer. McEvoy v. Spencer, 124 F.3d 92, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“holding that the policymaking status of the discharged or demoted employee is very significant in the Pickering balance, but not conclusive”); Rankin, 483 U.S. at 390-91 (noting that the states interest in discharging an employee based on a claim that the statement made by the employee somehow does damage to the public employer’s job, some notice must be given about the concerns of the employee within the

The appeals court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. Under the ADEA, plaintiffs in the disparate treatment claims must show that age was the “but-for” case of the challenge employment decision. Although this case might otherwise be a good candidate for a mixed-motives analysis that is not a possibility under the ADEA. Nevertheless, the court found the combination of fairly strong circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive and some reasons to disbelieve the employer’s claim was sufficient to warrant a trial. The court found particularly significant the statement of Lindsey and Thomas, who participated in the decision to terminate Baker, evincing a preference for the employment of younger workers over

Fritzsche and Marcus, from the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, conducted a study on age discrimination of older workers who are changing jobs within the same field as their experience compared to changing jobs and seeking a position in a different field. The study analyzed the same type of groups with younger applicants. The study results indicated that the age discrimination towards the older applicants was consistent. The younger subjects with no experience were chosen over the older adults with experience because of age; discrimination trumped experience. When neither group had experience, youth was preferred again. Fritzsche’s summation of the study included that younger job applicants received higher suitability ratings than older job applicants (Fritzsche). Age discrimination is real. One factor examined in this study was how the applicant’s experience played into the hiring decision. It would be no surprise to see the study results reflecting that an experienced person, young or old, would be chosen over one with no experience. Therefore, the length of experience was not provided, in the study, to prevent introducing a fluctuating factor; the intention was that all criteria evaluated was consistent except age. The surprising part was that younger applicants were preferred even if the older applicant had experience and the younger had none. This

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014). The charging parties claimed DSW terminated employees over the age of 40 between the years 2007 and 2010 during a force reduction (EEOC v. DSW Inc., 2014). Furthermore, the EEOC and charging parties declared DSW retaliated against workers who refused to participate in the discrimination (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014).

Ms. Houston claims that she was fired because of her age. Ms. Houston is 55 years old, therefore she belongs to a protected class under the ADEA (see O’connor). According to the facts, the whole department, were Ms. Houston worked, was fired and she had to reapply for the position, when she reapplied, it was noted she did not have the education required for the position. The Chief Elections Advisor position required a college degree, and completion of a six-month training course, which Ms. Houston did not have. The company decided to not accept Ms. Houston re-application and hired Ms. McIntosh, a 60

This case is based on Mrs. Bonnie Wittenburg, who sued American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. (AEFA), alleging that the company fired her based on age discrimination. Mrs. Wittenburg was hired for AEFA in 1998, as an Equity Research Analyst when she was 46 years old. In 2001, Mr. Truscott was hired as AEFA 's Chief Investment Officer (CIO). In 2002, Mr. Truscott started a 2-year project, where three managers were hired and he anticipated on hiring more managers in Boston, due the creation of a new satellite office in Boston, and the merge or movement of certain funds to AEFA 's satellite offices is different states. In 2003, AEFA informed Mr. Wittenburg that as a part of the reduction-in-force plan (RIF), her position was terminated. After her termination, Mrs. Wittenburg applied to a portfolio manager position at AEFA, but she was not hired. As a result, Mrs. Wittenburg filed a claim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (p.693, Wittenburg v. American Express)

Age discrimination is an issue today, more than ever especially when companies seek to avoid having to pay retirement or medical benefits and do so by firing older employees who might be about to invest in their pension or who might need medical attention. Another reason is that older employees may be paid more than new hires, so companies replace older workers with new workers just for that reason. This type of change is in addition to those who are simply biased against older workers and who take any opportunity to remove older works and bring in new blood

Siani v. State University of New York at Farmingdale, 2010 WL 3170664 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2010)[3] is a case where the plaintiff Dominic Saini filed a case of violation of Age discrimination in Employment Act and claimed an adverse inference in march 2010 that the defended State University of New York at Farmingdale were unable to implement and effectively carryout litigation hold which resulted in spoliation of electronic records. The judge acknowledged that the defendants were