ipl-logo

Jensen V. Eveleth Taconite Company Case Study

1249 Words5 Pages

Lois E Jensen, et al., v. Eveleth Taconite Company, et al. is a class action lawsuit which addresses various issues. The issues addressed in the case include the following discriminatory practices: “discrimination in hiring, and in terms and conditions of employment such as job assignment, promotion, compensation, discipline and training. [The] plaintiffs also alleged sexual discrimination based upon sexual harassment the existence of a work environment that is hostile to women” (“Jenson V. Eveleth” 2). The laws in question include the violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The case was started by Lois E. Jenson, a female who started working at Eveleth Mining on March …show more content…

Eveleth” 47). However, the court also ruled that the plaintiffs’ “class-wide claims of sex discrimination in hiring, job upgrades and assignments, compensation, training, hiring into craft positions, discipline and retaliation [be] DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE” (“Jenson V. Eveleth” 47). Since “Title VII and MHRA authorize an award of attorney 's fees to the ‘prevailing party’ in cases brought under their authority”, the court also ruled that the plaintiffs receive “reasonable attorney costs” (“Jenson V. Eveleth” 46-47). Finally, the court also ordered a second trial of junction in which the amount owed to the plaintiffs would be determined. As I previously mentioned, in the trial of junction, the Special Master ruled that the plaintiffs were only entitled to compensation ranging from $2,500- $25,000 (which averaged about $10,000 per plaintiff involved), which the plaintiffs later appealed. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, the plaintiffs won their case when the court reversed the District Court’s affirmance of the Special Master’s report “remand it to have damages re-determined in accordance with the correct legal standard” (“United States Court of Appeals”

Show More
Related
525 Words | 3 Pages

Key Facts: (Who are the parties? What are they fighting about? Who is suing whom for what?) Susan Kirkpatrick, Appellant; John Zitz and Transamerica Insurance Company, Appelles; Kirkpatrick originally filed a complaint in trial court for a skunk bite she received while in a pet store owned by John Zitz.

Read More
660 Words | 3 Pages

The court also ordered the city to pay her attorney’s fees. The city appealed the ruling based on the grounds that they were not notified of the harassing behavior until after Williamson filed an internal complaint. Specifically, the city contended it could not be held liable for any knowledge the officer’s supervisor had regarding the sexual harassing conduct. The appellant court upheld the lower court’s

Read More
620 Words | 3 Pages

Williamson later filed a complaint with IAD that Bozeman had retaliated against her for her complaint against McLeod. She advised she was shunned, taunted and given a less desirable assignment that caused her to lose overtime possibilities. IAD eventually found her sexual harassment to be not sustained and McLeod only received a written reprimand and Bozeman faced no disciplinary action. Williamson filed an EEOC complaint and this led to suit against the City of Houston. A jury ruled in Williamson’s favor and she was awarded lost compensation and punitive damages.

Read More
600 Words | 3 Pages

This lawsuit has been settled. The jury awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages. The judge added an additional $223,292 in damage. State Farm Insurance plans to appeal.

Read More
955 Words | 4 Pages

Case Analysis Paper / Discussion MBA 623 Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Shamalbhai Paper # Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim.

Read More
681 Words | 3 Pages

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the NLRB decide? This case is based on 26 former employees of MasTec Advanced Technologies, Inc. (MasTec), who sued the company alleging that their employment were terminated after an appearance on a TV news show, complaining about unfair new pay formula and the instructions to lie to the customers in order to meet with the telephone lines installations rates. As is mentioned in the textbook in the MasTec Advanced Technologies' case, the new pay formula indicate that the technicians would be paid $2 less for basic and additional outlet installations, but would earn $3.35 for each receiver they connected to phone line.

Read More
1227 Words | 5 Pages

1. Title and Citation Vance v. Ball State Univ. 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

Read More
279 Words | 2 Pages

Your honor, I am Micha Schiebe [defendant] for my company, TGI Friday’s. This is court case number 2590-11-2 Bernard v. Carlson Companies TGIF and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America. This case took place on January 4,2010. On January 4, 2010, Michael Bernard had the opportunity to sample a new item on the menu at TGI Friday’s, his place of employment.

Read More
825 Words | 4 Pages

Plaintiffs: Newark Fire Department employee Lomack, along with 33 other Firefighters, the Newark Firefighters Union and the Newark Fire Officers Union. Defendant: City of Newark.   The Legal Issue:

Read More
994 Words | 4 Pages

Case Questions: 1: “Why couldn’t this case have been covered by title VII on the basis of gender?” The Case could not be covered by title VII on the basis of gender because the document does not contain language regarding discrimination to one 's affectional or sexual orientation. However, the federal court concludes that discrimination on the basis of sex outlaws discrimination against women because they are women and men since they are men. Due to LAD, this situation is gender discrimination. 2: If Enriquez’s employment with Health Systems were not terminated, would she still have a claim for discrimination?

Read More
154 Words | 1 Pages

This article discusses how Target Corp. In Minneapolis will pay $2.8 million dollars in a hiring discrimination claim filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The money will be divided among thousands of applicants who were adversely impacted. The discrimination claim alleged that Target used three employment assessments that disproportionately screened out applicants based on race and gender.

Read More
611 Words | 3 Pages

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide? This case is based on a sex discrimination claim established by the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Dial Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC represents a group of women who applied for work in Dial Corporation, but they were not hired after the test called Work Tolerance Screen (WTS).

Read More
878 Words | 4 Pages

During the late March 2011, the Court heard the first oral arguments. On 20 June 2011, the Court issued its ruling, reverting the ruling of the court of appeals. In October 2011, the plaintiffs reopened their complaint with the federal court in San Francisco. This time, they claimed gender bias on the behalf of employees in California.

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

Discrimination has become a major issue in the workplace and sometimes difficult to pinpoint discriminative acts. Discrimination acts range from biasness in the promotion, hiring, assignment of duties, compensation, the method of termination, retaliation, various forms of harassment, and so forth. However, Americans can comfortably rely on some federal laws that serve to counter discrimination at the workplace. Throughout the hiring and the termination process, it is important that the employees become aware of the appropriate process to keep off from acts of discrimination. , in this case, John is an employee of the private entity that goes against the principles of the current law relating to discrimination.

Read More
1289 Words | 6 Pages

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are very serious issues happening today in the workplace. Women or men have suffered from unsolicited sexual behaviors that are typically provoked by someone “higher” in position. “Sexual harassment especially has been a fixture in the workplace since women began to work outside their homes” (Fitzgerald, 1993). It is solely the responsibility of the employer to ensure that all employees within are aware and are very cautions of laws, misconduct, and liabilities. Employers must enforce the Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and further extend those laws and guidelines to their employees.

Read More

More about Jensen V. Eveleth Taconite Company Case Study

Open Document