Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Employers liability in tort
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Employers liability in tort
As of May 30th 2017, the Supreme Court has settled the case BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell in an 8:1 decision, ruling that a state level court cannot implement jurisdiction over a railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. In March of 2011, Robert Nelson, an employee of BNSF Railway, sued the company for the knee damage he had received throughout his job duration. The railway company countered by attempting to dismiss the case for its lack of personal jurisdiction. As a result, the lower court acknowledged the motion and Nelson appealed. Another employee, named Brent Tyrrell, also suffered occupational health concerns; he had allegedly been exposed to harmful carcinogen that caused the onset of his kidney cancer. In conjunction
On February 26th 1972, Dam 3 of the Buffalo Mining Company a subsidiary of the Pittston Coal Company, failed resulting in a flooding of the Buffalo Creek Hallow. The disaster caused property damage, wrongful death, and psychic impairment. West Virginia prohibited any dam built any dam built over “fifteen feet in height across any stream or watercourse without a prior determination by the state that it is safe” (15). The state’s failure to properly enforce this law gave Pittston the ability to claim the disaster was an act of God; this was supported by President Nixon who referred to this as a natural disaster (187). In his testimony Mr. Spotte, head of the Pittston Coal Group, stated the accident was a natural occurrence beyond the company’s control. However he admitted that this particular dam (3) was not built in the custom of the company other dams lacking a spillway system. This failure to ensure a standard constituted a negligent breach of duty (134-137).
Wolford General Partnership (WGP) operates plumbing supply business which is also an exclusive supplier for certain stable construction firms. Because of its excellent reputations and services, WGP is able to an extremely profitable entity for the business. WGP uses an accrual method of accounting and has been using June 30 fiscal year for the tax report purpose after its election of §444 since its formation.
Taxpayer Jason was diagnosed with fibromyalgia 3 years ago at which time he left his public accounting job due to the affects of stress on his symptoms. After becoming an accountant at a manufacturing job his symptoms subsided, until last year when the firm hired a high-strung and demanding accounts manager whom Jason discovered was double billing customers. The stress created from the situation exacerbated Jason’s fibromyalgia symptoms and his doctor insisted he take a leave of absence, which resulted in him being fired by the new accounts manager. After winning his lawsuit for wrongful discharge, Jason received a settlement for back wages, attorney fees, and $50,000 categorized as nonemployee compensation.
The question at stake was if a plaintiff could bring forth a suit of salary discrimination under Title VII when the unequal salary a person received during the 180-day limit prescribed in the provisions is ultimately the result of a long period of discrimination that reached far beyond the statutory limitations . Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts that her failure to file with the EEOC when she first felt like her salary was based on discriminatory actions did not allow her special considerations for because she felt that her pay discrimination was not the same as other types of employment discriminations; however, they believed her claim to be untimely as a decision regarding pay has to do with a particular point in time, which in this case would only be permissible in the 180 days and the pay period after she filed the
? NET tried to move the case to Federal court and failed (January 1986). The court determined that neither federal law nor union contracts preempted Massachusetts state laws on discrimination and privacy.
and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in
In the case of Chelsea Industries, Inc. v Gaffney there was a name that goes by the name Lawrence Gaffney who was the president and general manager of Ideal Tape Company (Ideal). This company was engaged in the business of manufacturing pressure-sensitive tape while being a subsidiary of Chelsea Industries, Inc. (Chelsea). Gaffney along with three other ideal executives he recruited decide to open a competing manufacturing company using their positions at Ideal to gather ideas, get customers, and equipment while Chelsea had no idea of their intentions. Chelsea decided to sue them for the damages. I believe that Chelsea would win this case and also be awarded for the damages. Simply put, an officer of a corporation cannot and should not
The 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County was pivotal supporting company’s affirmative action plans. In this particular case, a woman, Diane Joyce, was promoted to a position at the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency over several men of equal qualifications. A male, Paul Johnson, received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and filed suit that he was discriminated against for his sex and it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Search warrants are a key element for police and help keep themselves from getting in trouble. For example, In the Illinois V. Gates case, an illegal warrant led to the destruction of private property and the violation of the 4th Amendment. This problem caused questioning of whether the court should have taken this issue as a probable cause or not. The two arguments that the parties of this case contemplate over are the anonymous letter and how the “basis of knowledge” effects the outcome of this case.
In Milwaukee County Case No. 14-CF-4197 The State charged Mr. Boyd in a criminal complaint with one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver
Mr. Edward Roberts has 22 months of experience as an over the street truck driver. Out of work, Mr. Roberts connected for a position at a nearby trucking organization because of a daily paper promotion on March 31, 2005. Roberts, never met nor shrunk by the organization, about the status of his application .Roberts saw an indistinguishable promotion in the daily paper one month later June 2005. Roberts' request, about the position, later discovered that all whites were contracted for the position, with less experience. Roberts documented a separation claim against the organization being referred to; the organization fought that there was not opening when Roberts connected for the
In the example provided, the main issue is the privacy of employees. The company has installed hidden surveillance cameras in a bathroom and the camera was found by an employee. The employer stated that it was placed there because the area had become a high theft area and they wanted to patrol the space in an effort to reduce the crime within the workplace. After further investigation, more cameras were located in the employees’ physical fitness room. The use of workplace surveillance videos are becoming more common, but the employees still have a right to privacy. “Courts have usually ruled in favor of employers using surveillance cameras, as long as the cameras are not placed in areas where employees do have an expectation of privacy” (Harty-Golder,
SAN FRANCISCO — The University of California, Berkeley, declared Friday that Claude Steele, the college's official bad habit chancellor and executive for as far back as two years, surrendered his managerial positions for individual reasons.
In Breed v. Jones, Gary Steven Jones, a 17 year old juvenile, had a petition filed against him in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court. This petition claimed that Jones committed acts while armed with a deadly weapon. Acts which would have been the crime of robbery if committed by any adult. The petition added that because of the acts, Gary Steven Jones was a person within the grasp of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 602. A detention hearing was later held in which Jones was ordered to be detained until a jurisdictional hearing.
The legal issue to identify in the case of homer and the two fumigation services, is to confirm legal binding contracts between the parties. In order for a legal binding contract to take place, there must be an offer in place. Furthermore, the offer must be communicated to the offeree and consideration must be taken place before the acceptance. The contract is then bound legally between the two parties, making it a legal binding contract once the offeree accepts the offer from the offeror.