Vance V. Ball State University Case Summary

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

I do not understand why Felicia Hendrix, Probation Officer Manager would encourage an employee to write a letter making false statements, defaming my character of being a racist so that she can gain supervision of training Ms. Amibeth Grandy. This is a form of retaliation, hatred blatantly toward me. These allegations are extremely hurtful. I treat everyone the same regardless of their gender, race or nationality with professionalism and fairness.

Next a case relating to employment difficulties during the Black Civil rights movement was Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the year 1971. The ruling on this case by the Supreme Court was that Duke Power Company was « discriminating against black employees, » because their qualification for employment did « not pertain to applicants ' ability to perform the job,» but rather was influenced by other factors such as race, and therefore they were not hiring people in certain racial

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheila White interviewed with Marvin Brown and obtained a job as a “track laborer” with Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. Shortly after her hire date, however, she assumed forklift operator duties. This new assignment still fell under the “track laborer” position description, and White occasionally performed those duties although her primary responsibility was operating the forklift. Three months into her new job, White complained to the company that her immediate supervisor was sexually harassing her on the job. He was temporarily suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training. White was then informed that she was being reassigned to track labor duties only. White

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

“A decade ago, Hempstead’s only full-time black police officer sued, alleging that Chief Smith had dismissed him on a trumped-up charge after he complained about his supervisor’s racial slurs. An African-American couple also sued, alleging that Chief Smith had turned them away when they reported that a white man had assaulted

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

Throughout the years, many Amendments to the Constitution have been created. The first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791. These Amendments guaranteed citizens certain privileges that the government could not take away. The First Amendment guarantees U.S. citizen’s five equally important rights. First, it gives us the freedom to criticize the government openly. Second, it prevents us from being forced to print only what the government wants in the newspaper. Third, the First Amendment inhibits the government from establishing an official religion. Fourth, it allows us to come together publicly or privately, in order to form political groups with different ideas. Finally, it allows citizens to ask the government to change by collecting signatures and petitioning. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect our rights as U.S. citizens. In the court case Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, Brentwood Academy felt their rights were not protected and took legal action for infringement of the First Amendment. This long-standing court case had me asking the question, “Is it acceptable for high schools to recruit potential athletes?” The conflict between Brentwood Academy, a private school in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the TSSAA, an administration that oversees TN high school athletes, began in 1997. It all started when

The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). Justice Scalia labeled Saint Mary’s Center v. Hicks case “pretext-plus” approach. Other courts, commentators, and analysts originally also classified the term pretext-plus. The approach of this case is similar to “pretext-only” approach from the case McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green of 1973 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). The employee must develop a discrimination case and accepted as correct and proved

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC laws are enforced. EEOC laws give citizens the ability to find a job without being discriminated upon race, religion, origin, or sex. There are many laws that have stemmed from this Civil Rights Act. I think that these laws have established a well-rounded society.