Sunbeam Television Corporation v. Marilyn A. Mitzel Broadcast journalist Marilyn A. Mitzel won her court case against the Sunbeam Television Corporation and received a substantial amount of compensation, about $1 million in reparations (House 1). Mitzel believed the television station in which she worked, WSVN Fox 7 discriminated against her age when she was fired in 2005. Her career as a news anchor reporting for WSVN-TV began in 1988 and lasted for 17 years on a contract-basis (Sunbeam v. Mitzel). Every two or three years, her contracts would be renewed under the sole license of Sunbeam until February of 2005. The Sunbeam corporation had the power to program, future and present broadcasts as predetermined by the contracts.
An employee has the right to work in a safe environment, one that is free from hazards that could lead to serious harm. Causing dissention and the hostile work environment for employees created the potential for a violent incident to occur. At the very least, the potential for a costly mistake due to duress they were under, which could have caused physical harm. The defendants’ faced discrimination and retaliation based on their race. This appalling treatment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by doing so, invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allowing the monetary damages
Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So.3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) Appellant/Petitioner: Rafael Holland Appellee/Respondent: Cheney Bros., Inc. Facts: The claimant, Rafael Holland challenged the legal sufficiency of the Judge of Compensation (JCC) denying the request of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 723 P.2d 1354, 181 Cal. Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S. Ct. 133, 74 L. Ed.
Actions that led community members to experience shock, per the extreme and outrageous conduct element of the rule, were categorized as “extreme and outrageous.” In KOVR-TV v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 37 Cal. Rptr.2d 431 (Cal. 1993), a report’s behavior was constituted as extreme out outrages, when he informed unaccompanied minors that their next-door neighbor killed her children and then committed suicide (Id. at 432, 433). Saxenmeyer (KOVR-TV reporter) “interrogated” three children, under the age of twelve without adult supervision, as to the activities happening outside (Id. at 432).
Luigi Vittatoe Dr. George Ackerman ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law December 2, 2015 Week 6 Case Study: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? R. Williams Construction Company petitions for review of a final order of the OSHRC for violations of the OSHA Act.
"Stanford v. Kentucky." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-5765. Accessed 16 Apr.
Its been fought over for many years that violent video games should not be given to minors, but teens and minors reply in a different way that of to adults and physiologists. But what does the Supreme Court have to say? One child psychologist claims to believe “violent video—games—which have become increasingly interactive and realistic—could lead minors to commit real-life acts of aggression, and that such games are psychologically damaging to them”(Yee 17). In order to understand the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, one must know that a psychologist believed that violent video games for children lead to aggression later on in life, Each side presented its own view on the case, The impact on this case has changed Americas view on video game distribution to minors.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Problems in Tenure Litigation The case Howard University v. Best, 547 A.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1988), is the second appeal arising out the employment contract of appellee Dr. Marie L. Best with appellant Howard University. In Howard University v. Best, 484 A2d 958,990 (D.C. 1884) (Best I), Dr. Best stated claims of indefinite tenure, sex discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of, not being awarded indefinite tenure but a late notice for a non-renewal of her contract ( Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. ,2013). In the trial, the verdict was in favor of Dr. Best, holding the University had breached its contract with her by failing to provide timely notice of non-renewal.
Jurisdiction means the power, right and authority to interpret and apply law, according to Mayer, Warner, Siedel, & Liberman (2015). The current petition for Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. (2014) was filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Washington D.C. in 2006. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is an independent administrative tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office, resolved the case. The office is authorized to determine a party’s right to register a trademark with the federal government, or if the party already owns a registration, it determines its right to maintain it according to Mayer, Warner, Siedel, & Liberman (2015).
There were many court cases that were discussed in class regarding the mob versus the individual. The most important ones were the United States v. Schwimmer, Roe v. Wade, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and Brown v. Board of Education. In all but one of the cases above, the Mob (the government) used its power to stop the individual from pursuing their American dream. The individual was right in all of the cases because they had the right to express themselves and pursue their dream; and the government had to right to stop them from following it. Starting with the Schwimmer case, the individual was right because the government was not giving her a valid reason as to why they were denying her citizenship.
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable have recently struck a deal. The two cable companies are waiting for their merger application to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates communications through the media. Both Comcast and Time Warner claim that this merger is more to the benefit of their consumers, increasing services provided by the companies. However, this “merger” is nothing more than a takeover by Comcast, the company trying to increase the monopoly it is becoming.
