Case
Assignment 1
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 1. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #1
James Karagiorgis is a civilian employee of the United
States Navy who is ordinarily assigned to the Nanal Sea System Command
(“NAVSEA”) in Washington, D.C. For a few weeks in 1996, Karagiorgis was
temporarily assigned to perform an “engineering reliability backfit” on the USS
Los Angeles, which was moored at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base in Hawaii. Because
no government quarters were available on the base, Karagiorgis arranged
commercial lodging through a government travel agent and procured a rental car
for use while in Hawaii. The cost of both the car and hotel were reimbursed by
the Navy.
On January 24, 1996, James Karagiorgis finished his day’s
work on the USS Los Angeles, left the ship and began driving toward the exit of
the base, which was some distance from the ship where he had been working.
While still just inside the base, he rear-ended a car that was stopped in
traffic, injuring its driver, Clamor.
After first exhausting her no-fault benefits as required by
Hawaii state law, Clamor filed a complaint against Karagiorgis in Hawaii state
court.
Question: Was the employee (Karagiorgis) acting within the
scope of employment when he negligently injured the plaintiff (Clamor)?
Explain.
Case #2
Leonard A. Vernon (“Vernon”), a citizen of the United
States, is a black male over 40 years old who was born in Belize. He received a
B.A. in Civil Engineering in 1977 and an M.S, in Environmental Engineering in
1980. In January 1984, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port
Authority”) hired Vernon to be a Principal Administrative Assistant, a Level
B-92 position, with the Civil and Environmental Unit of the Engineering
Department. In January 1985, Vernon was promoted to Staff Services Engineer, a
Level B-93 position. Throughout his career at Port Authority, Vernon has been
recognized favorably for his work.
In September 1989, Heidi Rosenberg, a white engineer in the
Environmental Engineering Unit, was promoted to Senior Engineer, a Level B-94
position. Vernon was not promoted despite the fact that Marvin Krishner, Chief
Environmental Engineer of the unit and Vernon’s immediate supervisor, wrote in
a 1987 memorandum that Rosenberg and Vernon were both “performing at ‘Senior
Levels.’” In December 1992, Rosenberg informed her supervisor that she had
received an employment offer in another department, and to induce her to stay
in the Environmental Engineering Unit, she was promoted to Supervising
Environmental Engineer, a Level B-95 position.
In March 1993, Rosenberg resigned from Port Authority, and
Port Authority advertised her position internally as well as externally. Vernon
applied for the B-95 position but was notified in May that he had not been
selected for the position. A white, 65-year-old temporary employee, who had
been working for Port Authority for one year, filled the vacancy. In March and August
of 1994, Vernon complained to the Assistant Chief Engineer for Design and the
Executive Director of Port Authority about alleged ongoing discriminatory
practices at Port Authority. In September 1994, Frederick Meyers, Manager of
Port Authority’s Equal Employment Office (“EEO”), started an investigation into
Vernon’s allegations of discrimination.
Question: Was race a factor in the Port Authority’s denial
of Vernon’s promotion? Explain.
Case
Assignment 2
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 2. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #3
In July 1994 Elvis R. Stewart, an African American, began
working for the McDonald’s restaurant located inside the Wal-Mart store on
Benson Boulevard in Anchorage, Alaska. Stewart’s shift was from 7:30 p.m. until
closing, the time of which varied. Stewart also worked at Taco Bell. Stewart’s
shift at Taco Bell was from 11:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. In order to work both
shifts, Stewart carried a change of clothes and personal items in a duffel-type
bag. He would change out of his Taco Bell uniform, and into his McDonald’s
uniform, in the Wal-Mart bathroom. He used the Wal-Mart bathroom, instead of
the Taco Bell bathroom, because it was larger and less crowded with customers.
Wal-Mart had a nationwide policy of stationing a member of
its management team at its exits to check for receipts of purchases made by
Wal-Mart and McDonald’s employees, and to check for stolen items that might be
concealed in their personal bags. Management conducted the checks before
employees left the store at the end of their shifts.
According to Stewart, sometime during his third week of
employment, Hardy stopped him as he was exiting McDonald’s at the end of his
shift. Hardy asked to search Stewart’s bag, and then proceeded to dump the
contents of Stewart’s bag onto the counter and look through it. According to
Stewart, this type of bag search continued until mid-February 1995. Steward
testified that he routinely objected to the searches.
Stewart asked Hardy whether he searched certain people
because they were black. Hardy answered yes.
Question: Were the searches motivated by race
discrimination? Explain.
Case #4
Elizabeth Salsbury, a speech language pathologist employed
by SunDance, was notified by letter from SunDance dated February 26, 1999, that
the company was compelled to reduce its workforce and that Salsbury’s job would
be terminated effective March 1, 1999. The letter informed Salsbury that she
would receive 80 hours’ worth of severance pay after signing a separation
agreement and general release.
A provision of the agreement stated, “This Release and
covenant not to sue also expressly, and without any limitation of the foregoing
General Release, includes bot is not limited to any claims which Releasor may
have or may assert under federal or state law prohibiting employment
discrimination and claims growing out of any legal restrictions on the rights
of Company to terminate its employees, whether statutory or arising under
common law, including without limitations: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Releasor on behalf of herself and
other releasers expressly agrees that she will not institute, commence,
prosecute or otherwise pursue any proceeding, action, complaint, claim, charge
or grievance against Company or any other released parties in any
administrative, judicial or other forum whatsoever with respect to any acts or
events occurring prior to the date hereof in the course of Releasor’s dealing
with Releasee.”
Salsbury decided not to sign the Separation Agreement.
Question: Can severance pay be given conditional to the
employee’s promise to forego proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act? Explain.
?
Case #5
Howard Saari was employed by Smith Barney, Harris Upham
& Co., Inc., as an account executive beginning in July 1988. He alleges
that his work was satisfactory at all times. According to Saari’s complaint, on
or about December 14, 1988, a “sum of money, supposedly belonging to a client
of Smith Barney, was supposedly stolen from the desk of a Smith Barney
employee.” Saari alleged he was questioned about the theft and was later asked
to take a polygraph test concerning the incident, which he refused. Saari
claims he was then terminated for his refusal to take the polygraph
examination.
Saari became a registered representative of the NYSE and
thereby subject to its Rule 347, which provides that “Any controversy between a
registered representative and any member or member organization arising out of
the employment or termination of employment of such registered representative
by and with such member or member organization shall be settled by
arbitration.”
Saari contends that the enforcement provisions of the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act show no such flexibility.
Question: Is the arbitration requirement in violation of the
EPPA? Explain.
Case
Assignment 3
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 3. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #6
Van I. Irion, a Caucasian male who is a veteran of the
United States Air Force, submitted an application for a position as a
firefighter with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in September
2000.
The process for obtaining a position as a firefighter with
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District involves several steps, which are
set forth in the county’s Personnel Management Regulations (“PMRs”). First,
applicants are given a written test, a physical agility test, and an interview
with the County Department of Human Resources, the results of which are
combined to come up with a score for each applicant. In addition, a 5%
Veterans’ Preference Credit is added to the scores of veterans who apply.
The Interview Schedules indicate that Irion received a
numeric rating of 4. The Interview Schedules also appear to indicate that at
least two minority candidates with lower initial rankings and lower Chief’s
Interview scores were hired—#24 who is identified as Hispanic and received a
rating of 3, and #53 who is identified as “Asian or Pacific Islander” and received
a 3-4 score. In addition, one minority candidate with the same Chief’s
Interview score of 4 and a lower initial ranking, #34 was hired. Finally, two
minority candidates with Chief’s Interview scores of 4 and lower initial
rankings than Irion, #68 and #69, appear to have been given initial conditional
offers of employment, but they were not ultimately hired.
Beadle, who was Personnel Officer for the Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District at the time of the relevant events, states in
his declaration that he was present at the meeting in which the Chief’s
Interview Panel made its recommendations for Academy Class 34 and that the
panelists “did not recommend Mr. Irion for hire…because they unanimously felt
his answers to questions illustrated that he was too rigid and would be a
difficult employee.”
Irion asserts that Contra Costa County discriminated against
him on the basis of veteran status, in violation of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”). Under USERRA, employers may
not deny a person employment on the basis of membership, including past
membership, in a uniformed service. USERRA is violated when veteran status is a
“motivating factor” in the employer’s action.
Question: Was an applicant for a position as firefighter
discriminated against because he was a United States Air Force veteran?
Explain.
Case #7
Ms. Walker was a permanent clerk typist in the Internal
Revenue Service’s Atlanta office. Ms. Walker is a light-skinned black person.
Her supervisor was Ruby Lewis. Ms. Lewis is a dark-skinned black person. The
employees in the office in which Ms. Walker and Ms. Lewis worked were
predominantly black. In fact, following her termination, Ms. Walker was
replaced by a black person. The working relationship between Ms. Walker and Ms.
Lewis was strained from the very beginning, since approximately November of
1985. Ms. Walker contends that Ms. Lewis singled her out for close scrutiny and
reprimanded her for many things that were false or insubstantial. Ms. Walker’s
relationship with her former supervisor, Virginia Fite, was a cordial one. In
fact, Ms. Walker received a favorable recommendation from Ms. Fite.
Ms. Walker met with Sidney Douglas, the EEO program manager
for the Internal Revenue Service’s Atlanta district about the problems she was
having with Ms. Lewis. Two weeks later, pursuant to Ms. Lewis’s recommendation,
Ms. Walker was terminated. The reasons given for her termination were: (1)
tardiness to work; (2) laziness; (3) incompetence; and (4) attitude problems.
It is Ms. Walker’s belief that the reasons were fabricated and were the result
of Ms. Lewis’s personal hostility towards Ms. Walker because of Ms. Walker’s
light skin.
Question: The issue is whether color discrimination includes
difference between light-skinned and dark-skinned people of the same race.
Explain.
Case
Assignment 4
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 4. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #8
Elysa Yanowitz joined L’Oreal’s predecessor in 1981. She was
promoted from sales representative to regional sales manager for Northern
California and the Pacific Northwest in 1986.
In the fall of 1997, Jack Wiswall, Yanowitz’s superior,
ordered Yanowitz to have a female sales associate at Macy’s West store in her
region fired. As justification, Wiswall explained that the associate “was not
good looking enough.” The associate had dark skin; Wiswall preferred
fair-skinned blondes. Wiswall told Yanowitz, “Get me somebody hot,” or words to
that effect. Yanowitz did not carry out Wiswall’s order. When Wiswall asked her
whether the associate had been dismissed on subsequent occasions, Yanowitz
requested adequate justification for firing her. Yanowitz did not complain to
Human Resources, nor did she tell Wiswall that his order was discriminatory.
Question: Does the pressure placed on a regional sales
manager by her general manager to hire a sales associate who was attractive
constitute sex discrimination? Explain.
Case #9
In late October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent
Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S.A., Inc. oil platform in the Gulf
of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew, which included
John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and
Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority. On several occasions, Oncale
was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by
Lyons, Pippen, and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and
Lyons also physically assaulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened
him with rape.
Question: Does a victim of same-sex sexual harassment have a
viable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Explain.
Case #10
Dwayne Kelley began working for Crosfield as a laboratory
technician on August 1, 1992. This position required Kelley to work 12-hour
shifts for four consecutive days followed by three consecutive “off” days.
Kelley was scheduled to begin a four-day work rotation on October 22, 1993,
when he unexpectedly received a phone call from his mother. His mother informed
him that the Brooklyn Bureau of Child Welfare was preparing to take custody of
Shaneequa Forbes, an 11-year-old girl. Shaneequa was born into the marriage of
Barbara and Michael Forbes, but Kelley had reason to believe that he might be
the girl’s biological father.
Kelley told his supervisors at Crosfield that Shaneequa was
his daughter. Kelley missed four scheduled workdays while attending to this
matter in New York. On his first day back at work, October 29, Crosfield
terminated Kelley’s employment. Kelley alleged that his termination violated
the FMLA because he took leave from work in order to “obtain custody of my
kids.”
Question: Is seeking custody of one’s own children covered
by the FMLA? Explain.
Case
Assignment 5
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 5. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #11
Mary Myers is a practicing Seventh-day Adventist. The tenets
of her religion forbid her from engaging in any form of work on the Sabbath,
which extends from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday.
In June 1988, Myers was hired as a full-time bus operator
trainee by the New York City Transit Authority, which operates its buses on a
seven-day-per-week, 24-hour-per-day basis. From the outset, Myers made it clear
to her supervisors that her religious commitments would prevent her from
working between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday. A problem arose
because she was assigned Wednesdays and Thursdays as her days off, a schedule
requiring her regularly to work on her Sabbath.
Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement
between the Port Authority and the Transport Workers Union, the privilege of
selecting weekly days off was allocated in accordance with a strict seniority
system. Myers spoke with several of her employer’s representatives in an effort
to obtain some accommodation for her Sabbath observance. Her request for
“split” days off was rebuffed on the ground that the practice was forbidden by
the collective bargaining agreement.
Question: Must an employer make a good faith effort to try
to accommodate an employee’s Sabbath when the accommodation would place the
employer in violation of a collective bargaining agreement? Explain.
Case #12
Dr. Cacace is an urologist and Marge DeSantis is his office
manager. Ms. Rosario, born in New Jersey of Puerto Rican ancestry, was hired in
late June 1997 as a secretary/medical assistant. She was discharged in early
August of the same year.
One qualification for the job was fluency in Spanish because
most of Dr. Cacace’s patients were Spanish speaking. Ms. Rosario is bilingual
in Spanish and English. Another bilingual medical assistant, Bertha Aranzazu,
was also employed in the office. Dr. Cacace speaks English and Spanish as well,
as does his wife who also worked in the office and is of Hispanic origin. Ms.
DeSantis was the only employee who was not proficient in both languages; she
spoke and understood English only.
Ms. Rosario characterized Ms. DeSantis’s treatment of her as
follows:
During my employment, at least once a week I was told on
many occasions by Marge DeSantis not to speak Spanish on the job and on
occasion not even speak Spanish to patients. One occasion, Marge DeSantis told
me and another employee, “I am going to let one of you go because there is too
much chitchat in Spanish I don’t understand.” It is a common custom among
people of Spanish national origin to speak Spanish to each other. Bilinguals
even combine English with Spanish. It just happens. I have always habitually
done this and to this day I still do it and no employer I have ever worked for
to this day has ever complained except Ms. DeSantis.
On or about August 5, 1997, DeSantis fired Rosario, telling
her, “I’m sorry that I have to let you go like this because you are a nice girl
and a quick learner, but I cannot have you speaking Spanish in my office.”
Question: Can an employee be discharged for speaking Spanish
in the workplace? Explain.
Case
Assignment 6
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 6. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #13
Casey Martin is a professional golfer and also an individual
with a disability as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA).Since birth he has been afflicted with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome,
a degenerative circulatory disorder that obstructs the flow of blood from his
right leg back to his heart. The disease is progressive; it causes severe pain
and has atrophied his right leg. During the latter part of his college career,
because of the progress of the disease, Martin could no longer walk an 18-hole
golf course. Walking not only caused him pain, fatigue, and anxiety, but also
created a significant risk of hemorrhaging, developing blood clots, and
fracturing his tibia so badly that an amputation might be required. For these
reasons, Stanford made written requests to the Pacific 10 Conference and the
NCAA to waive for Martin their rules requiring players to walk and carry their
own clubs. The requests were granted.
When Martin turned pro and entered the PGA Tour’s Q-School,
the hard card permitted him to use a cart during his successful progress
through the first two stages. He made a request, supported by detained medical
records, for permission to use a golf cart during the third stage. PGA Tour
refused to review these records or to waive its walking rule for the third
stage.
Question: Is allowing use of a golf cart a reasonable
accommodation for a professional golfer with a disability that restricts him
from walking substantial distances? Explain.
Case #14
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. and United Mine Workers of
America are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement with arbitration
provisions. The agreement specifies that, in arbitration, in order to discharge
an employee, Eastern must prove it has “just cause.” Otherwise the arbitrator
will order the employee reinstated. The arbitrator’s decision is final.
James Smith worked for Eastern as a member of a road crew, a
job that required him to drive heavy truck-like vehicles on public highways. As
a truck driver, Smith was subject to Department of Transportation (“DOT”)
regulations requiring random drug testing of workers engaged in
“safety-sensitive” tasks.
In March 1996, Smith tested positive for marijuana. Eastern
sought to discharge Smith. The union went to arbitration, and the arbitrator
concluded that Smith’s positive drug test did not amount to “just cause” for
discharge. Instead, the arbitrator ordered Smith’s reinstatement, provided that
Smith (1) accept a suspension of 30 days without pay; (2) participate in a
substance-abuse program; and (3) undergo drug tests at the discretion of
Eastern (or an approved substance-abuse professional) for the next five years.
Between April 1996 and January 1997, Smith passed four
random drug tests, but in July 1997 he again tested positive for marijuana.
Eastern again sought to discharge Smith. The union again went to arbitration,
and the arbitrator again concluded that Smith’s use of marijuana did not amount
to “just cause” for discharge, in light of two mitigating circumstances. First,
Smith had been a good employee for 17 years, and second, Smith had made a
credible and “very personal appeal under oath concerning a personal family
problem which caused this one time lapse in drug usage.”
The arbitrator ordered Smith’s reinstatement provided that
Smith (1) accept a new suspension without pay, this time for slightly more than
three months; (2) reimburse Eastern and the union for the costs of both
arbitration proceedings; (3) continue to participate in a substance-abuse
program; (4) continue to undergo random drug testing; and (5) provide Eastern
with a signed, undated letter of resignation, to take effect if Smith again
tested positive within the next five years.
Question: Is the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate a driver
who twice tested positive for drugs arbitrary and capricious? Explain.
Case
Assignment 7
Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 7. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)
Case #15
Skidmore was required by his employer, Swift Co., to be “on
call.” The “on call” situation allowed him to be anywhere he wished to be. When
called, however, he had to be there within an hour. This was called “waiting
time.” Overall, during most weeks, his actual hours exceeded the 40 hour
workweek. Skidmore requested overtime pay, but was not paid. Swift argued that
Skidmore was not entitled to such compensation.
Question: Should on-call time be compensated as working
time? Explain.
Case #16
Ms. Savage, a teacher at Sebring Middle School, was injured
in December 1990 during a basketball game between the teachers and students.
The game was an annual charity event. The game occurred during regular school
hours, and the teachers received their regular salary. The teachers were
required to participate in the game, either as a spectator or as a player. No
benefit or detriment resulted from a teacher’s decision to play or to act as a
spectator.
ISSUE: Is the injury Ms. Savage sustained due to her
participation in the faculty-student basketball game “work related”? Explain.
Case #17
On Saturday, November 11, 1995, Ms. Parry was employed by
Wal-Mart and was scheduled to work a 4:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. Ms. Parry
left the store at 8:30 p.m. for her meal break. She did not return that night;
instead, she called the store from her home and told the assistant manager that
she had slipped on ice in the parking lot on the way to her car and injured her
back. After seeking medical care, Ms. Parry was released to work on December
26, 1995.
The Wal-Mart parking lot was covered with ice as the result
of an ice storm on November 11, 1995. There was only one parking lot at
Wal-Mart, used by both employees and customers. Employees were requested, but
not required, to park on the south side of the lot so that customers would have
better access to the front door. However, the south side of the lot was not
restricted from customer use.
As Ms. Parry walked to her car at about 8:30 p.m. her feet
came out from underneath her. She twisted around to catch herself but her back hit
the ground. She drove to her home approximately one block away and called
Wal-Mart, speaking to the assistant manager. She did not return to work that
night or the next day. She sought medical attention on Monday.
Question: Is the employee covered under workers’
compensation for sustaining injuries by falling in a parking area designated
for use by the general public? Explain.
