You Decide Week 6 Essay

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.

Supreme Court case Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson of 1986, and Harris v. Forklift Systems of 1993 are examples of a more recent judicial action that has helped shape the contemporary sexual harassment practice (Siegel, 2004). These mentioned two sexual harassment cases linked the unwanted sexual harassment to affecting the employee’s performance and work environment. Furthermore, no substantial victim mental distress is required to receive jury award (Robbins, Decenzo & Coulter,

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

“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

This case is about a group of women who were discriminated against based on their gender. The lawsuit was put into the hands of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) after a group of Latino women that worked for Rivera Vineyard, Inc. reported multiple complaints. Those involved included Rivera Vineyards Company employees that consist of Latino female workers, male workers, and male managers. Most of the Latino farm workers suffering victimization were females, there were also some males. These males were targeted because of their attempt to speak up on behalf of the harassed females.

On Sunday November 24, 2016 at approximately 16:02 hrs. Officer L Wilkerson and I Ofc. R. Holcomb were dispatched by dispatcher B Coleman to 304 Hopkins Drive in reference to a disturbance. Upon my arrival I made contact with Ms. Shawntavia Lucky (complainant) who stated that her son Mr. Jousha Lucky (victim) got into a physical altercation with two black males.

O’Neal and their hourly co-workers often joked with each other in a sexually explicit manner, including making offensive jokes and engaging in sex-related physical gestures. Upon learning of this behavior, LM Aero launched a separate investigation into conduct that might constitute sex harassment in the workplace. Of particular note, this investigation was not triggered by any complaints made by your client or his co-workers. Instead, it was initiated by management upon learning of these activities as part of the investigation into the physical altercation between Mr. Snyder and Mr.

At first initial contact the police rudely came to the door, Mapp did not allow the police force enter, stating that they didn’t have a search warrant. A couple of hours later the police came back and didn’t comply with the legal philosophy appointed. The police portrayed to have a valid search warrant even through they did not, it happened to be just an imitation of one. When she wanted to inspect the document she was quickly detained. They did not find what they were looking for and arrested her for the irreverent evidence. Law enforcement found a truck containing pornographic materials, which were illegal to have in Ohio at the time. This was what was used as an example as to when the fruit of poisonous tree applies because belongings where illegally obtained. This is why the Supreme Court utilized the exclusionary rule and saw this as a violation of the United States

In another account of rape on April 4, 2014, a sheriff’s deputy was convicted of rape where he pleaded no contest. Jose Sanchez was found guilty and sentenced to nine years in prison. He originally pulled over a woman in her car for an outstanding arrest warrant and then came to find she was drunk driving. Rather than arresting her there, he put her in the back of his patrol car and drove her out to the desert where he abused her and then drove her back to her car where he continued to sexually harass her. Two days later he pulled over a woman in her mid-thirties and bribed her in the form of a sexual activity .

Joshua and his mother filed a complaint against the DSS, which alleged that the DSS deprived Joshua DeShaney of his liberty without due process, which would be violating his rights under the 14th amendment, by failing to protect him against his father’s abuse which they knew of or should have known of yet didn’t intervene. The district court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents’. They held that the Due Process Clause doesn’t require the state to protect its citizens from “private violence or other mishaps not attributable to the conduct of its employees” (DeShaney v. Winnebago). By doing this, the Court of Appeals was overturning several precedents, including Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York (1985) and Jensen v. Conrad (1984) which held that once the State has knowledge that a child is in danger of abuse and actually takes action to protect him/her from that danger, a “special relationship” emerges between the State and the child thus imposing a constitutional duty to provide adequate protection. Furthermore, in relation to Martinez v. California, the “casual connection” between the DSS’ conduct and Joshua’s injuries was too diminished to establish a deficiency in his constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals therefore found it unnecessary to answer whether the respondents’ conduct showed the “state of mind” needed to make a due process claim after the precedents set in place by Daniels v. Williams and Davidson v. Cannon.

The case involved respondent Darius Clark who in 2010 was charged with abusing his girlfriend’s two children aged three and eighteen months (Miller, 2010). The children had been in Clark’s care while their mother went to Washington, D.C. to engage in prostitution that was arranged by Clark (Miller, 2010). The oldest child, went to his daycare center and his teachers noticed marks on the child (Miller, 2010). When they questioned the child about his injuries he identified Clark as the person who harmed him (Miller, 2010). As mandatory reporters the teachers informed the authorities. When the case was heard by a jury in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Clark was found guilty of four counts of felonious assault, two counts of domestic violence, and two counts of child endangerment for abuse of both children and sentenced to twenty-eight years in prison (Miller, 2010). In 2011 the 8th District Court of Appeals in Ohio reversed and remanded Clark for a new trial based on the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause (Ohio v. Clark, 2011). The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the basis for the appeal was that the testimony repeated by the teachers who questioned the child in court,

This memo is in regards to the lawsuit that has been brought against Teddy’s supplies by Ms. Pollard, a former employee of Teddy’s. As an independent consultant, I have been asked to review the case and determine if Teddy’s has any liability issues in regards to this case.

In the court cases Madrid v. Homeland Security Solutions, Inc. the plaintiff, Kelli Madrid, reported that she was slapped in the butt, and the proceeded to walk away. “Therein, [the] plaintiff claims the defendant created a hostile work environment

This writer will be discussing a case where a male employee files a sexual harassment claim against the employer as the male employee identifies as being gay. He also is filing discrimination on the basis of his gender and alleges retaliation as he was terminated after he had complained about his female coworker. Apparently, the male employee alleged that a female employee while at a dinner and concert after work hours grabbed his privates. It is important to note that the male employee’s performance prior to the incident was declining and was counseled on several occasions by his employer about his declining production. Furthermore, this writer will be discussing whether if the facts could result in liability to the employer for sexual harassment or gender discrimination. Also, this writer will be integrating and referring to various sources and cases that