Plaintiff

In general, employers are allowed to install video cameras within an organization, which may include direct surveillance of employees. First of all, this can be done without significant legal concern, at least when placed in areas open to view. Both public and private employees may seek to assert an expectation of privacy, though constitutional protections apply to public, but not private employees. The reasonable expectation of privacy is determined on a case-by-case basis considering specific policies

otherwise defer. By this way, a company can use price concessions to prop up its reported revenues and profits. Plaintiffs pointed out that PwC auditors were aware of the excessive trade loading by their client and this should have been a “red flag” for PwC to investigate the possibility that their client was fraudulently misrepresenting its operating results. The judge agree with the plaintiffs that PwC’s workpapers revealed the firm was aware of Campbell’s disproportionately sales near the end of quarterly

Campbell pledged that in the future Campbell would provide “proper accounting for nonperformance related discounts, but they didn’t. The auditors might be reckless because they did not perform professional due care. Shipping to the Yard The plaintiffs pointed out that Campbell had recorded all customer sales on an FOB shipping point basis. In fact, the actual shipping terms for many of Campbell’s sales were FOB destination. PwC was aware of this practice and had decided that since Campbell used

In our case, the plaintiff wouldn’t be granted compensation for the intentional infliction of emotional distress because he didn’t prove that the behavior of the defendant caused him severe emotional distress. Conclusion In conclusion, under NC law, George is not entitled

first, a common law action for the keeping of a vicious animal and, second, an action based on what is commonly known as the "Dog Bite Statute" (Ill. Rev Stats 1963, c 8, § 12d). • The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on that issue. [No opinion issued from this court] • On the statutory count, however,

(1996). However, an inference can be drawn when one employee is replaced with a “substantially younger” employee. Id. See Richter v. Hook-SupeRx, Inc., 142 F.3d 1024, 1028 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[T]o satisfy the fourth prong under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he was replaced by a younger person, as long as the replacement is not ‘insignificantly younger.’”). In his Complaint, Dobosz identifies only one potential comparator when he alleges that

Corp., the court held that when Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against the resident Defendant and the failure is obvious, the joinder is fraudulent. McCabe v. General Food Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987). The defendants presented facts showing the joinder was fraudulent. Id. Additionally, Defendants were fraudulently joined because they were working in a managerial capacity. Id. General Food had ratified their actions. Id. If plaintiff alleged they acted on their own

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Case No. 2, 1999, posted at www.itlos.org. Facts October 1997, the M/V Saiga, an oil tanker, was engaged in selling “gas oil” to fishing and other vessels within Guinea’s exclusive economic zone. The next day, the Guinean Navy boarded the Saiga just beyond Guinea’s exclusive economic zone and the master, crew, and the ship were arrested. The government of Guinea charged the master with importing “without declaring

Sally Thompson (Sally) cannot successfully state a cause of action for IIED against Nicole Kidman (Nicole). Under Illinois law, in order to claim IIED, it must be proven that (1) the conduct involved must be truly extreme and outrageous, (2) the actor must either intend that his conduct will inflict severe emotional distress, or know that there is at least a high probability that his conduct will cause severe emotional distress, and (3) the conduct must in fact cause severe emotional distress. [McGrath

duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis