Allen Vs. Isotoner Case Brief Essays

The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented sufficient evidence for a trial to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a "pattern of sexual harassment that was persuasive and regular." The appeals court disagreed with the District Court and ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals remanded Suders claim for trial. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes

Adkins v. Children 's hospital: reversed judgment that women deserved special protection in workplace and women 's minimum wage law.

Procedural Facts: In May 2010, a couple of months after Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski donated his sperm and have eight eggs fertilized for freezing, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sent Defendant Karla Dunston a text message ending the relationship. In August 2010, two months after the relationship ended, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski filed a pro se complaint in the circuit court of Cook County. Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sought to keep Defendant Karla Dunston from using the frozen pre-embryos so he was not forced to father a child against his will. Defendant Karla Dunston ended up counterclaiming and asking the court to grant her sole custody and control over the pre-embryos so she could someday use the pre-embryos to bear her children. Defendant Karla Dunston sited breach of contract and asked the court for relief under promissory estoppel. The circuit court ended up siding with Defendant Karla Dunston by granting her full custody and control over the use of the frozen pre-embryos.

Jennifer alleges that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. She neglects the fact that Greene’s discharged her because her position, junior executive secretary, is redundant to the company. It is transparently that Jennifer is a member of protected class and was dismissed. Yet Greene’s did not violate The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) under Title VII. According to Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), it is an unlawful employment practice if an employer discharges any individual because of such individual 's race,

In 1976, by a 7-2 decision, the Court adopted an intermediate level of review for gender classifications in the case Craig v. Boren. The decision struck down a statute that allowed women over the age of eighteen to purchase beer but only men over the age of twenty-one. Using this intermediate scrutiny, the Court has invalidated gender segregation across the board. However, while this heightened level of scrutiny has drastically helped women, it has not been equal in its effect on men. Since Craig, the Court has upheld a requirement that only men register for the draft (Rostker v. Goldberg) and a statutory rape law where only adult men were punished for having sex with an underage individual of the opposite sex (Michael M. v. Superior Court). While these cases occurred in the 80s, this trend of favoring women over men in gender discrimination cases has continued, especially in regards to administrative law and protection. Recent Supreme Court cases reveal that men are still being unfavorably ruled against over women, leading one to believe a push for strict scrutiny is key in bridging that gap and implementing a federal statute that all States must obey in order to ensure gender equality is achieved on both sides of the spectrum.

Oregon decision, a precedent for labor hour laws was set based on genders. With the Industrial Revolution booming, many people have been looking for jobs at factories. With the factories, cheap labor is easy to find but the working conditions are harsh and the hours are long for minimal pay; one job is hard to support a family. As Woodrow Wilson put it, “There was a time when corporations played a very minor part in our business affairs, but now they play the chief part, and most men are the servants of the corporations” (Wilson 41). Labor laws are definitely needed during the Lochner era because many people were subjugated with terrible work because they needed to be able to support their family. Muller v. Oregon jumpstarted the nation into the transition for safer work and was a huge step for lining the nation into a safe haven for everyone. However, the execution of a safer world was inadequate because of its repercussions. With the hegemonic male patriarch in society, women are viewed as subservient in our society. The gender formation with amount of physical strength has translated to women being perceived as weaker and needing fewer hours in order to survive. They are constantly seen as weak because a “woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious” (Brewer 83). People view giving birth as females’ behaviors because males cannot give birth. Because women give birth, society inherently gives women the job of taking care of their offspring. Men have an inborn personality of independence and apathy; because women do not share the same characteristics, they view females as inferior. Men have synonymously put child birth and taking care of children as one value for women, making them inferior because males are not born with that characteristic of care. History has shown repeatedly that women are seen as weaker and this case further justifies this fact.

The District Court erred in granting summary judgment for Friendly Grocers. The plain language of the ADA mandates reasonable accommodation requires reassignment to a vacant position. Under the 42 U.S.C § 12112(a), employers have duty to not discriminate against any individuals with a disability. (cite) The statute takes one step further by stating that the employers have duty to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee which includes reassignment of the employee to a vacant position for which the disabled is qualified.(cite)

The relevant law used by the court to determine the outcome of the case was the “"bona fide occupational qualification" exception of § 703(e),

The need for the new law to be established began with the conflicting outcomes coming from the various levels of the court system. The courts disagreed on what constituted sex discrimination. Six different United States Courts of Appeals had ruled in favor of pregnant women saying that any employment act that would adversely affect a pregnant woman was sex discrimination as outlined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Supporting this position was the view of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who also agreed that discrimination based on a pregnancy would be considered sex discrimination. However, the United States Supreme Court would change all of that with its ruling in two separate court

On March 25th, 2015 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former United Parcel Service employee was denied accommodations after she became pregnant. UPS failed to give, Peggy Young, less strenuous work after her medical professional advised she not lift anything heavy during her pregnancy. The justices, voting 6-3, sent the case back to the lower courts to reevaluate UPS’s defense for not to accommodating Young’s needs.

The issue is whether Evee can prove a potential title VII sex discrimination claim against faith+1 for limiting her hours at work based off her being a woman with a newborn child.

This transgender equal pay case was moved up from an “A” classification to “SA” because, the topic of gender identity is controversial in our current society and, the results of this case may pave the way for future legislation (i.e. Equal Pay Act coverage, Title VII coverage, LGBTQ laws etc.) to become more encompassing. The Charging Party (“CP”) was an Assistant Manager who identified as a female and was denied promotion to Store Manager after several attempts – she had excellent performance evaluations and was the highest in seniority amongst Assistant Managers. In one instance, CP voiced her interest in a temporary Store Manager role that appeared when the current Store Manager left on her maternity leave. The Respondent (“R”) promoted a less qualified candidate (also an Assistant Manager) to the position instead. Additionally, this individual was allowed to keep the $2/hour wage increase even after resuming his initial Assistant Manager role. Other instances when R consciously overlooked CP includes: 1) sending her co-workers that were trained by CP to Store Manager training classes for future promotion whilst denying CP of the opportunity and 2) claiming that CP has revoked interest in promotion after CP completed computer manager

Case 2.2 to be honest has no indications of a legal issue occuring. If Erin Garvey provided more information as to a possible discrimination that occured at the job. Then we would be able to come to a legal decision as to what happened. In the case description there is no clear reason as to why Erin got terminated. So before we make any assumption toward this case, Erin need to provide more information. As for her superviosor, if the case was brought to court they would also have to provide information as to why Erin was terminated.

“In-Vitro Fertilization Raises Custody Rights and Family Law Questions” 2012, Law Firm Legal News Center Retrieved November 5, 2015

In the case of Orr v. Orr 440 U.S. 268 (1979), an Alabama man was ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife pursuant to Alabama statues which stated that husbands, not wives, are required to pay alimony upon divorce. The man appealed to the Alabama Court of Appeals, insisting that his constitutional rights had been violated. The State of Alabama sustained the constitutionality of the statues and the man then decided to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where the State's decision was then reversed and remanded. The man argued that the gender-based scheme for alimony violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled on the basis that "the State's preference for wives having a dependent role to husbands in family responsibilities was not substantially related to the important governmental objectives of assisting needy spouses (using sex as a proxy for need) and removing disparity in economic conditions between men and women." Additionally, the Court ruled that it was no longer feasible to compensate women based on the notion that marriage left them unprepared to support themselves following a divorce.