The case Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP addresses the scope of the retaliation provision under Title VII that enables protection for the employees against the illegal actions of the employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits retaliation cases in order to decrease the exposure to the discriminatory activity in actions of the employees. Meanwhile, this article states that the retaliation should be understood as the situation when the employee of the firm was fired or reassigned as well as he was deprived of the certain range of the benefits if the employer considered them in contradiction with the current employment practice. It is quite hard to measure retaliation as the worker should prove that any action of the employer affecting him, has the adverse effect. However, in case particular behaviour of the employee may alter the scope of the volume of compensation occurred for the employee or his benefits, the retaliation appears. If Title VII will not permit retaliation cases, the employees will be not protected against the illegal actions made on behalf of the employers (Owens, Gomes, & Morgan, 2008).
Given the merits of the case, it is clear the actions of the NAS are not reasonable in relation to the dismissal of Thompson. However, the Supreme Court of the United States with the consideration of the case extended the scope of the Title VII and its applicability to the retaliation cases. NAS fired Thompson as the response to the submission of his fiancé Regalado based on the sex discrimination claim. As NAS had no legal instruments used in form of the response to the discriminatory submission, the management took the decision to fire Thompson being engaged with Regalado. The Supreme Court considered the nature of this dismissal and concluded that it was illegal per se. The Court considered that the Title VII maintained the prohibition as to the termination of the office of Thompson. The main purpose of this article is to support the prohibition for the employees to take actions that may dissuade any employee being the victim of the charge based on the discrimination. In addition, the Supreme Court defined the nexus between the people in the pair and perspective impact of the actions of the employers having the intention to undermine the position of both employees of one company. Therefore, the Court decided that such class of the relationships should be protected while NAS had not legal standing to fire Thompson. Moreover, he was not covered with the notion of the persons involved in the protected activity in order to bring the case before NAS. However, the judiciaries delivered opinion that Thompson was in the zone of the specific interests that may influence the rights of the close person as his fiancé. Thus, Thompson is protected with the provisions of the Title VII jointly with Regalado. Besides, this decision proves that the amount of the retaliation claims has been increased. In this regard, the employers should expect that any submission will be considered by the court with application of the case-by-case principle. Consequently, the employers face the necessity to defend submission grounded on the relationships between the employees under the protected activity while one of them may be not engaged in it.
Briefing Paper 2: Law Case with Answers
The case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Newark Branch v. Town of Harrison, New Jersey was devoted to the analysis of the race discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The state authorities of New Jersey enacted the document that introduced limitation regarding the working opportunities for the population. In fact, with the adoption of the Ordinance 747 the employees of this particular region should be considered from the perspective of the place of the residency. However, this article was found discriminatory because of the allocation of the significant amount of African American in New Jersey. Meanwhile, the allegation as to the infringement of the equality arises in relation to Harrison actions. The authorities of Harrison interpreted Ordinance 747 in the manner that it created challenged for the local population composed of the majority of African American during the submission of the documents to the employers. The representatives of African American community files applications to the employers and were denied because of the local regulations maintained by state authorities of Harrison. In this regard, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Newark Branch filed the case against Harrison. The Supreme Court considered the local regulations and concluded that imposition of the residency principle has all features of the race discrimination. The maintenance of such legal impediment is not allowed under the provisions of the current Constitution of the United States which has the aim to support the equality in the treatment between the races and nations. In addition, this requirement infringes the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the purposes of the evaluation of the diversity of the population in the country, the judiciaries calculated the availability of the cultural groups, their residency in Harrison. Moreover, they concluded that Harrison represents the integral part of Newark. In this regard, the interests of all present social and racial groups should have been taken into account by the state authorities during the development of the local regulation. In addition, the court delivered the opinion that Harrison did not have African Americans as the permanent residents of the country. This in turn resulted in the fact that representatives of this community automatically were deprived of the working opportunities in this city. Furthermore, the judiciaries requested plaintiffs which were presented by different organizations to provide information about the engagement of the people of different communities for the diversified offices in Harrison. It was found that African American had no opportunity to be engaged in the police agencies and state bodies because of the residency factor grounded on the exposure to the discrimination. Meanwhile, the city drew employees from the other counties as Hudson, Bergen and Essex in order to fill vacancies. However, the local population was not used for the improvement of the business climate in the country because of the assertion that African American can not be persons with highly professional skills for the delivery of the qualified services. Therefore, the plaintiffs succeeded to show to the court that the provisions of the Ordinance 747 interpreted by authorities of Harrison country with the inclusion of the residency requirement for the police offers and fire fighters was in violation with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From this perspective, the court ordered to develop justifiable injunction within reasonable period of time in order to remove detrimental effect of the discriminatory activity in Harrison. Besides, this case is not an exclusion as the case law of the United States contain several examples about the exposure to the discriminatory conduct on behalf of the police officers and other representatives of the state bodies within the country. Even now the issue of the discriminatory behavior is regarded as serious social problem within justice system that should be addressed by the local government with relevant measured. Given the diversity of the population of the United States, it is seemed reasonable that exposure to the discriminatory regulations should be strictly controlled in the state for the prevention of the internal conflicts between several racial groups (Hagen, 2010).
Briefing Paper 3: Critical Legal Thinking Cases
The employment law of the United States is one of the most complex branches of law in the legal system of the country. The courts face several difficulties in the search of the balance of the interests in the determination of the filed cases to them. The case McLaughin v. Rowley is the example of such case law practice. According to the merits of the case the Plaintiff filed the claim containing the allegations to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. He states that this legal instrument creates limitations to the operation of the transactions of the assets and their further delivery to the participants with the appropriate interest rated. Moreover, the claim of the plaintiff is set on the fact that the respondents to the case acted in the violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because of the inability to manage the transfer of the loans in the prudent manner. The court considered the case and decided that the Plan, based on the details involved, should be regarded as the individual pension benefit plan created for the employee under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The judiciaries defined the volume of the interest rates paid to the defendants and found them illegal. Given the fact that the defendants serving the role of the trustees of the loan failed to exercise their functions in the right dimension, the court decided that they infringed fiduciary duties. The defendants did not manage to operate with the assets under the individual Pension Plan. These persons should return to their professional obligations and perform these duties before the participants of the Plan in relation to the payment of the interest rates in the right sizes within next five years (Mangiero, n.d.).
The other case Wilson v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board focuses on the payment of the injuries and reimbursement to the employees under the current legislation of the country. The plaintiff as Wilson received several injuries during he performance of his professional duties. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board did not satisfy his request to grant compensation award. Wilson filed the case to the court in order to receive appropriate compensation and maintain justice. In his standing, Wilson asserted that the workers should be compensated for the damages and injuries occurred during the travel to the working place and from it. The main issue that should have been considered by the court as to whether the injuries obtained by the plaintiff may be accepted as in the course of the employment. The investigation proved that the plaintiff received injuries as the result of the case incident. The employer did not request Wilson performing the functions of the school teacher to use the car in order to achieve the home facilities of the pupils. In this regard, Wilson acted on the voluntarily basis with the purpose to save time between the classes. Moreover, home of the pupils is not considered by the employer as the site where the professional obligations should be performed. Moreover, the plaintiff was going to the personal home facility while the judiciaries defined that the “going and coming” rule should not be applicable to this particular case. In this respect, the compensation should not be satisfied. Due to the fact that the home was chosen by the teacher as the site for the delivery of the working material, the employer does not bear any responsibility for the injuries received in this time. Therefore, the judiciaries did not establish business purpose that may serve the role of the exception to the “going and coming rule” which is the legal principle of the employment law.
In contrast, the case Sanchez v. MBank of El Paso contains dramatically different views of the damages appeared during the performance of the professional obligations. The main question posed before the judiciaries was as to whether the secured creditor should be not responsible for the violation of the peaceful order due to the involvement of the third party performing the powers of the contractor with the purpose to finalize repossession. The first instance delivered the opinion that the functions of the repossession can not be issued to the third party for the substitution of the initial contractor. In fact, MBank hired the El Paso Recovery Service in order to return the car taken by Sanchez. The actions of the latest are not legal because he did not comply with the requirements under the loan. Besides, MBank did not accept the fact of the responsibility for the actions of El Paso Recovery Service because of their status as third party to this particular relation. The main concern of Sanchez was that El Paso representatives violated the peace and claimed the return of the car in the violent manner, while Mr. Sanchez had the intention to cooperate with the bank. Accordingly, the court considered the provisions of the UCC act in terms of the division of the obligations before the creditor, borrower and third party. It ordered that any creditor has legal standing to use all instruments in order to receive the collateral from the defaulting debtor. At the same time, these actions should not have detrimental effect to the life and welfare of the society. Given the fact that MBank preferred to return the collateral by virtue of non-judicial repossession, this financial institution should be responsible to the risks related to the breach of the peace. Therefore, the bank as the initial creditor should have observed over the actions made by El Paso as third party to the relations and independent contractor. Therefore, the compensation to Mr. Sanchez should be made irrespective of his failure to return automobile in accordance with the financial obligations taken before the bank.
Briefing 4 : Case Study
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, any employee should he provided with the right to form the union at the local working place. However, this particular case concerns the limitations that were imposed by the petitioner regarding the formation of the union, spread of the appropriate literature about it. The petitioner to the case stated that the activity aimed to join union is in violation with Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labour Act. According to the current legislation, the unions should be formed beyond the working time of the employees. However, in case the activity of the union influences the working engagement of the employee, the employer should be informed about it in the proper manner. In addition, the general practice recommends that the soliciting of the employees to the membership of the union should be conducted before the work or after it so that to maintain the interest of the workers. Given the fact that within the premises of the firm, the owner enacted the prohibition regarding the membership in the union and its formation, the employees did not act ethically. They violated this rule with the health in mind based on the assertion that this rule of a constitutional one and it protected with the text of the Constituion. Besides, it is clear from the merits of the case that the working progress and performance has been dramatically decreased within the days when the employees were engaged in the soliciting activity. Meanwhile, there are no instruments that may affect the right of the employees to form the union am cause of its constitutionality. Although, the workers themselves should be able to udberstanding that in particular time it is highly important to maintain stable relations with the owner instead of the other employees. Consequently, Whitcraft did not have any power to discharge employees engaged in the union activity solely based on this factor. In case the worker is engaged completely in the activity of the union without any performance at the main working place, while the union did not inform beforehand about the intention to strike, this individual may be fired. Otherwise, the case should be considered individually
Briefing Paper 1: Critical Legal Thinking
In the case Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. the court was requested to define the applicability of the Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 22 U.S.C. 1326(b). This legal instrument grants special authority to the Environmental Protection Agency in the identification of the most suitable technologies that should be used by the relevant business units in the decrease of the effect to the surrounding environment within water resources. The plaintiffs to the case asserted that the Environmental Agency erred in the application of the costs and benefits analysis in the evaluation of the efficiency of the technologies used by the leading companies. This assumption grounded on the fact that managers of the Environmental Agency missed technologies that should protect aquatic living organisms against damage made with the installation of the particular cleaning technology. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted the decision that is reasonable that Environmental Agency applies costs and benefits analysis, as the companies usually can not adopt such decisions because of their orientation at the receipt of the profit. In turn, Environmental Agency is responsible for the protection of the flora and fauna, while the total revenue out of the activity of such companies as Entergy is not the main concern. In this regard, the business units should not have the discretion and duty to select the most appropriate mechanism and technology saving the environment. This approach is grounded on the fact that the companies usually attempt to save money in terms of the huge competition. However, the performance of this range of the functions on behalf of the Enriovnmental Agency raises concerns related to the spread of the corruption. In particular, there is a belief that some state authorities may facilitate the installation of particular technology of one company instead of another. Besides, it should be clear that Environmental Agency is driver by the efficiency factor (Lovett, 2012).
Briefing Paper 2: Law Case with Answers
Briefing Paper 3: Critical Legal Thinking Cases
The cases around the competition practice of the companies are quite interesting and complex. These cases are subject to the changes in the business environment due to the permanent introduction of the innovative technologies. With that, it is worth noting the case Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate – Palmolive Company, 380 U.S. 374, 85 S.Ct. 1035, 13 L.Ed.2d 904. This particular cases presents the evidence about the exposure to the deceptive conduct on behalf of the business units towards the consumers. With the purpose to present new good for the consumers, Colgate referred to the deceptive measures in form of the substitution of the materials during the presentation. The court considered the elements of the deceptive advertisement and stated that intentional misrepresentation was in violation of the current competition legislation. The inclusion of the misrepresentation materials in the presentation of the product to the audience influences the decision making process of the consumers because it has the features of the material fact. However, the court did not agree on the scope and measure of the material factors in the advertisement. Consequently, the court decided that Colgate acted in violation of the current competition legislation as this piece of the advertisement brought uncertainties about the features of the shave and its qualities as reliable product made by Coalgate. Therefore, such forms of the advertisement campaigns should be prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission in order to maintain healthy competition in the market of the United States. Moreover, this case served the role of the precedent for the other companies used deceptive information or measures in the preparation of the advertisements about the products and services. This case shows that the consumers should receive reliable information about the qualities of the product as one may decide to use it in the non-appropriate manner causing the detrimental effect to the life and health of the customer. In this regard, the companies should take care about perspective affects of the deceptive advertisements over the consumers (Barone & Miniard, 1999).
Briefing Paper 4: Ethics Case
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits any type of the deceptive and misleading advertisements. In fact, several companies attempt to add benefits to the goods and services produced even with their absence. However, the Federal Trade Commission prosecutes such activity. It is not legal to present the information to the audience that may affect the decision of the consumer to purchase the product in the positive way as it was done by Ritz Distribution Corporation with the promotion of Rejuvenescence Cream. It is clear that the company intended to increase production volumes. However, this approach is not ethical towards the customers of the company that believe in the qualities resembled in the advertisement.
References
Barone, M. & Miniard, P. (1999). How and When Factual Ad Claims Mislead Consumers: Examining the Deceptive Consequences of Copy x Copy Interactions for Partial Comparative Advertisements. Journal Of Marketing Research, 36(1), 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151915
Hagen, W. (2010). Dissection and Analysis of the Recent Cases on Employment Discrimination Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employee Responsibilities And Rights Journal, 23(3), 171-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9163-x
Imwinkelried, E. The Dangerous Trend Blurring the Distinction between a Reasonable Expectation of Confidentiality in Privilege Law and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1721820
Lovett, R. (2012). Mixed reviews for US Clean Water Act. Nature. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11809
Mangiero, S. ERISA Litigation Study. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1392631
Owens, J., Gomes, G., & Morgan, J. (2008). Broadening the Definition of Unlawful Retaliation Under Title VII. Employee Responsibilities And Rights Journal, 20(4), 249-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9083-1
