The Case Of Hines V. Overstock

Pam took an indefinite leave of absence from her job, sublet her apartment in State A, and

Facts: Defendant (Kmart) allegedly failed to provide to plaintiff (Lopez) the written wage statements. The availability of the wage statements is required under California labor code. Under the agreement, employment-related issues between the employee and company shall be resolved informally or by binding arbitration. This replaces the right of either party to go to court or have a jury decide the outcome of the claims. Lopez alleges that the agreement was never valid due to the fact that he was a minor when he acknowledged the agreement and is now entitled to revoke his consent.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

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.

Around November 2008, Dillard’s engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Cary, North Carolina location in violation of the Age Discrimination of Employment Act when it terminated Virginia Keene, a 61 year old woman, from her position ("Dillard 's sued by EEOC for age discrimination", 2010). She was an Area Sales Manager and was in charge of the Children’s and Accessories Departments and oversaw the sales associates who worked in her two departments. While she worked at Dillard’s, her managers repeatedly made verbal remarks to the fact that she was much older than the other five Area

In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis. Under Turners proposed accommodation, each inspector could continue to rotate on the hourly basis, with Turners, herself, rotating only between line 8 and 9. Hershey has not put up with that because this is not practical or

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.

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed suit against the U.S. government to exempt itself from the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Hobby Lobby’s owners are evangelical Christians who believe that the contraceptive mandate violates their religious beliefs; specifically, that life begins at conception when successful fertilization occurs within a prospective mother. Providing contraceptive measures, in Hobby Lobby’s view, would facilitate the abortion of a pregnancy, which most evangelicals equate to murder. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, along with all other closely held for-profit

The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

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).

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

After the end of the Civil War, the state of Georgia believed they deserved 35 million acres of land, so they claimed those 35 million acres of land from the Yazoo river which belong to the Native Americans. So basically, the land was kind of stolen. In the year 1795, the state legislator for Georgia sold those 35 million acre of state land to 4 private land companies for the price of 1.5 cent per acre. In 1796, a new legislator for Georgia found out that the previous legislators of Georgia who voted to sell parcels of the 35 million acres of land were stockholders in the companies that sold the land. The legislator also discovered that they were bribed in helping to re-sell the land for a higher amount while committing fraud and corruption.

The case of Mills v. Rogers has a significant importance in virtue of the human, civil and constitutional rights of the patients who are hospitalized at mental institutions. Despite the fact whether the patient was there voluntarily or contrary, Rogers believed that the institutions should respect the patient’s decision when it involved antipsychotic drug treatments. Rubie Rogers was a 36-year old black woman who voluntarily institutionalized herself at the Boston State Hospital (BSH). Rogers suffered from hallucinations along with delusions and acquired a history of thought disorder such as violent behavior. Before Mills v. Rogers, a prior lawsuit was filed.

Kelley acquired employment as a mattress salesman at Bed-Mart in January 2000. Upon employment, all sales personnel must sign a convent which includes both confidentiality provision - not and non complete provisions. In July 2000, Kelly ended his employment at Bed-Mart and began to work at Sleep America.