The Case Of Morris Vs. Ernst & Young

This case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in favor of union fees on the basis of the case

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

Sadly, much of the nation still recognizes the antiquated 1877 At-Will-Employment Law is a law that allows an employer to

Finally, the district court applied Texas law to hold that the EEOC could not recover for Rafiq 's mental anguish because there was no evidence that the anguish or stress that Rafiq suffered "was so debilitating that it interrupted his daily life." In reaching this conclusion, the district court erred in two ways: (1) the availability of mental anguish damages for a Title VII claim is determined by federal law, not state law; and (2) the district court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC.

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.

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

Specifically, section 8(a) (5) states that “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer - to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a) of the law.”

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

This case is followed by the laws and regulations of OSHA. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is an organization that has been put into place to ensure the safety of employees while on their jobs. These regulations are put into place to help reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths.

From the employer/employee social prospective, this case almost certainly, negatively impacts the relationship between the two. Neither party can conclude what is mandatory or up for bargain when contracting with one another. These imposed contracts have the unnecessary consequence of forcing employers to retroactively extend to workers optional benefits for which they did not contract.

Jon Fries, Fletcher Anderson, Craig Schuster, and Catherine Sprauer are the main figures in this case and they had important responsibilities in F&C International, Inc.

Rule based accounting standards are difference from principle based standards in that rule based standards are just that – rules. For instance, the Internal Revenue code is rule based. There are things you can do and things you can’t. When rules are broken,

Chapter 2 Harvard Press Book (2006). Performance management: Measure and improve the effectiveness of your employees. (Chapter 2) Motivation: The Not-So-Secret Ingredient of High Performance. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Lynn, I., Hodge, Y. & Yemen G. (2007). Teamwork turmoil. University of Virginia Darden School Foundation. Beamish, P. & Jiang, R. & (2011). The Chinese fireworks industry. Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation. Kaplan, R.S. (2010). Leading change with strategy execution system. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Karkhardt, D. & Hanson, J. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the charts. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of team. Harvard Business Review. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive. 9 (1), 7-14 Download on class site Kramer, R.M. (2003). The harder they fall. Harvard Business School Publishing. Cambridge, MA. Montgomery, C.A. (2005). Newell Company: Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business School Press.

The above formula isolates free cash flows to the firm from earnings before interest and tax (EBIT). It can be noted that FCFF are after tax (1-T) but prior to interest expense. This initial overstatement of due tax is by design; the tax deductibility of interest payments will be accounted for when incorporating the after-tax cost of debt in the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to determine the present value of free cash flows.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.