Defendant, Brad Hamilton (“Mr. Hamilton”), pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 7.1 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, respectfully moves for the entry of final summary judgment as to all claims pled by Plaintiff, Hannah Carson (“Ms. Carson”). In support of its Motion, Mr. Hamilton submits the following Memorandum of Law.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In a motion for summary judgment “[t]he moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no
…show more content…
genuine issue of material fact.” H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. Morris, 606 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 320-23 (1986)). The moving party has the burden of presenting facts as untrue or genuine and must be supported by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion for summary judgment only), admissions, interrogatory answers or other materials.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to “designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” H&R Block E. Enterprises, Inc., 606 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Celotex Corp., 447 U.S. at 324). Summary judgment could only be precluded if there are disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 …show more content…
(1986). LEGAL ANALYSIS This action alleges a violation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2 unlawful employment practices. Ms. Carson alleges that Mr. Hamilton administers an exam that has an adverse impact on women. Ms. Carson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC sent Mr. Hamilton a letter indicating that Ms. Carson filed a charge against him and that the charge was filed on October 12, 2015.
Mr. Hamilton should be granted summary judgment as a matter of law because Ms. Carson has not met the time requirement for filing a complaint with the EEOC as required by law. For a plaintiff to establish a successful action, section 706 of Title VII requires that a plaintiff “exhaust certain administrative remedies before filing a suit for employment discrimination.” EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). To initiate the administrative process a plaintiff is required to file a timely charge with the EEOC. Id. at
1271. Mr. Hamilton, through the introduction of evidence and case law, will be able to prove that the statute of limitations has expired on Ms. Carson’s action for employment discrimination. The statute of limitations begins to run when the specific act complained about actually took place. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110 (2002). In some cases, the requirement of filing of a timely charge may be “subject to . . . equitable tolling.” Zipes v. Trans. World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982). Ms. Carson did not meet the requirements that would allow the use the excuse of equitable tolling. Equitable tolling would be Ms. Carson’s only excuse to filing a charge with the EEOC past the time limitations required by statute. Mr. Hamilton will be able to prove through evidence and case law that summary judgment should be awarded. According to 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his . . . employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). Here, Ms. Carson alleged that she was discriminated against by Mr. Hamilton’s testing practices. Ms. Carson also alleged that Mr. Hamilton intentionally administered a test knowing that men score higher than women. Ms. Carson believes that she was denied a promotion with Hamilton Investments Co. because of the testing practices. However, Ms. Carson did not file a charge with the EEOC in a timely manner. “[I]n a deferral state such as Florida,” claims of discrimination “must be filed with the EEOC within three hundred days of the last discriminatory act.” Joe’s Stone Crabs, 296 F.3d at 1271(citing U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). Here, Ms. Carson met with Mr. Hamilton and the Promotions Committee on November 4, 2014, to discuss whether she would be promoted. (SMF ¶ 4). In the meeting with Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Carson was told that she would not be promoted because she did not have the highest composite score on the assessment test. That same day as the Hamilton Meeting, Ms. Carson filed an appeal with the Promotions Committee. (SMF ¶ 5). “Congress has decided that the time limitations periods commence with the date of the ‘alleged unlawful employment practice.’” Del. St. Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 259 (1980) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c)). In Ricks, the Court held that the time for filing a complaint with the EEOC commenced when the denial of tenure was communicated to the plaintiff. Here, Ms. Carson was denied her promotion on November 4, 2014, where the decision to deny her promotion was communicated to her by Mr. Hamilton during the meeting with the Promotions Committee. (SMF ¶ 4). For Ms. Carson to have filed a timely action with the EEOC, she should have filed before August 31, 2015. Ms. Carson filed a complaint with the EEOC on October 12, 2015, failing to file a timely action with the EEOC. (SMF ¶ 9). Ms. Carson had an obligation to file a timely complaint with the EEOC. The time for filing a charge with the EEOC commences on the “earliest date upon which the EEOC could allow a charge to be filed.” Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 808 (1980). Here, On November 6th, 2014, Ms. Carson submitted an Employee Suggestion Form that explaining that the testing practices implemented by Mr. Hamilton had an adverse impact on women. It is at this time that the time for filing with the EEOC commenced. Failing to file within three hundred days of the Hamilton Meeting will cause Ms. Caron to forfeit her claim due to untimeliness. In Mohasco Corp., the Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and “granted Mohasco’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that respondent’s failure to file a timely charge with the EEOC deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Mohasco Corp., 447 U.S. at 812. Here, Ms. Carson filed her action over three hundred days after the last discriminatory act on October 12, 2015. Mr. Hamilton should be granted a motion for summary judgment on grounds that Ms. Carson failed to file a timely action with the EEOC. Ms. Carson will claim that the time limitation did not commence until she learned of the denial of her appeal. In some cases, the requirement of filing of a timely charge may be “subject to . . . equitable tolling.” Zipes, 455 U.S. at 393. Equitable tolling can be used as an excuse by the plaintiff to file a charge with the EEOC after the time limitation has passed. Cocke v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 817 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1987). In Cocke, the Court reversed an order for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was unaware that the employer had failed to actively continue to look for a replacement position for the plaintiff. Here, Ms. Carson was aware that she was being discriminated against. On November 6, 2014, Ms. Carson submitted an Annual Employee Feedback Form and Employee Suggestion Form. (SMF ¶ 6, ¶ 7). The Annual Employee Feedback Form indicated Ms. Carson was aware there was a lack of advancement opportunities for women at Hamilton Investments Company. (SMF ¶ 6). Ms. Carson also complained of an adverse employment practice on the Employee Suggestion Form. (SMF ¶ 7). Equitable tolling would not apply to this case because Ms. Carson was aware that she was being discriminated against on November 6, 2014. Ms. Carson could also contest that the time for filing her complaint with the EEOC did not commence until the denial of her appeal was made by the Promotions Committee on February 6, 2015. (SMF ¶ 8). It has been held that “review of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations periods.” Del. State College, 449 U.S. at 261 (citing Elec. Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 234-235 (1976)). Mr. Hamilton has met the burden of producing evidence that would support a motion for summary judgment. However, “the plaintiff is not thereby relieved of his own burden of producing in turn evidence that would support a jury verdict.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Ms. Carson “must present affirmative evidence” in her favor to defeat Mr. Hamilton’s properly supported motion for summary judgment. Id. at 257. Here, the only evidence that has been presented by Ms. Carson shows that the time for filing a claim with the EEOC commenced on November 4, 2014. Ms. Carson has failed to present any evidence that would support her claim and require this matter to go to a jury trial. CONCLUSION Based on the facts presented above, Mr. Hamilton has met the requirements to be granted summary judgment. Therefore, Mr. Hamilton respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for summary judgment in its favor with respect to all of Ms. Carson’s claims.
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Sue contracts with Tom to deliver a quantity of computers to Sue’s Computer Store. They disagree over the amount, the delivery date, the price, and the quality. Sue files a suit against Tom in a state court. Their state requires that their dispute be submitted to mediation or nonbinding arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved, or if either party disagrees with the decision of the mediator or arbitrator, will a court hear the case? Explain. (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.)
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
In the EEOC’s Charge Process, John must go to his EEOC’s representative within this company and file a complaint. This is considered the administrative process. Pertinent information must be given about the plaintiff and defendant such as name, address and phone number, the date and a brief description of the charge. Once the charge has been filed the employer is notified that charges have been filed. The charge would be thoroughly investigated. A written description and date of alleged violation is requested again; interviews with people, documents are reviewed; and sometimes the facility is visited which the alleged discrimination occurred. As an alternative the charge may be assigned to the EEOC Mediation Program instead of an investigation, which both parties must consent to. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the charge returns back to investigation. There is a possibility that the charge be dismissed. If this is the case, John will be able to file a lawsuit on his behalf within 90 days.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is prohibited by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace, including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American descent.
If Petitioner did preserve his evidentiary claim, Petitioner still fails to show that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony. Using testimony limitations to prevent prejudice to a co-defendant is within existing precedent and comports with Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
On October 23, the trading day immediately following Skechers earnings report, the stock was down almost 32%, S&P 500 up 1%. The spiral dive in stock price was probably due to investors overreacting to one bad day, news or press release, or the investors did not trust Skechers’ management, which reflects the market losing faith in the brand. Hence, the unpredictable dive affects the informational inefficiency of the stock market that takes short or long time to adjust quickly and fully to any new or surprising information. R2. Search the internet to understand Regulation FD. Does Reg FD have any bearing on post earnings price moves such as the one exhibited by Skechers in our example? If so, why? If not, why not.
In the event the petitioner files a reply brief, the appellate court does not allow oral argument; it determines whether the petition will be granted based solely on the briefs” (Litigation Section, 2011, p. 4). When a criminal case petition is done it is referred to one or more judges in the Court of Appeals. If a petition is granted briefs are filed by both parties and the clerk refers it to a panel of the Court but if the appeal is not granted the petitioner then has the right to appear in front of a panel to state why their petition should be granted. In the end if all of the judges agree that the petition should not be granted then the case ends and the defendant can try for another
Judicial Precedent "Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making." Judges have always been relied upon to interpret and apply the law. Therefore, their decisions should be fair and consistent so as the individuals seeking legal remedies would have more faith in the judicial system of the state. AS the UK has not a very complete and/or codified constitution, this doctrine is very much relied on as contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation.