Case Analysis
Case 1: Palmateer v. International Harvester Company,85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)
Parties: In the case of Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.
Facts: The facts of the case revolved around the plaintiff's claim that he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company.
Issue: The issue at stake was whether or not the defendant company had acted within the bounds of the law, with respect to at-will termination.
Applicable Laws: The case involves the tort of retaliatory discharge in Illinois, i.e., termination is not justified when termination undermines public policy, i.e., the common good.
Holding: The holding of the court was that the plaintiff had indeed been wrongfully terminated, and awarded him damages accordingly.
Reasoning: The reasoning was that the defendant had undermined public policy by engaging in retaliatory discharge.
Conclusion: As is pointed out, the foundation of the tort of retaliatory discharge lies in the protection of public policy, and there is a clear public policy favoring investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses (p. 99). My recommendations are same as the courts: The defendant was protected under public policy from being terminated from providing law enforcement with useful information that would ultimately be used to protect and maintain the common good of the community by bringing justice to criminal actors within the company that terminated the defendant.
Case 2: Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, 2017 WL (M.D. Fla. 2017)
Parties: The parties are Generations Salon proprietors (plaintiff) and Silver Salon proprietors (defendants). The defendants were formerly employees of the plaintiff, Cangemi et al.
Facts: Generations Salon accuses Cangemi and Calianno of breaching the terms of their non-compete agreements, breaching their fiduciary duties, violating the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836, as well as violating Floridas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, FLA. STAT. 688.001.
Issue: Protection of trade secrets are apparently at issue, justifying the non-compete clause; also the issue of soliciting and diverting clients to defendants Silver Salon. Cangemi et al. claim they did not learn anything from Generations that they did not already know.
Applicable Law: Applicable laws are the FDTSA and the states UTSA, as noted above.
Holding: Injunction was granted to the plaintiffs, barring defendants from soliciting customers from Generations Salon or marketing so as to compete against Generations.
Reasoning: The judge reasoned that it was in the interest of the public that an injunction should be awarded...
…Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)Parties: The plaintiff, Local 28, represents sheet metal workers employed by contractors in the New York City metropolitan area. The defendant The defendant was the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Facts: The Local 28 had not had any members who were African American or Latinx for years, and the EEOC had filed a complaint alleging discrimination. The Local 28 agreed to an affirmative action plan offering benefits to non-members.
Issue: Affirmative action and discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities was the main issue in this case.
Applicable Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was the applicable law, cited by the EEOC.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the remedies in the case were appropriate under the circumstances and that the Local 28 was now operating in good faith in accordance with the public policy overseen by the EEOC so long as it implemented the affirmative action plan.
Reasoning: The justification for the decision was that the Local 28 had received several complaints on this matter in the past and had not taken any steps to remedy the situation. The affirmative action plan was seen, finally, as a remedy.
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the Local 28s steps to remedy the situation through…
References
Herawi v. State of Alabama, Department of Forensic Sciences, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Ala. 2004)
Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)
Generally, this is the case when a person's job puts them at increased risk for violence, such as when that person is a cashier. Casino employees already work in an environment that increases the potential for violence; casinos generally feature a lot of money on the premises, a substantial amount of drinking alcohol on the premises, and people who have lost a significant amount of money. Due to these
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was landmark legislation in the United States. The original purpose of the Bill was to protect black men from job-related and other discrimination, but it was later expanded to include protection for women. As a result, it provided political momentum for feminism. This Act prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. The Jim Crow laws in the South were finally discarded, and
Hostile Work Environment: According to the 1993 decision of the United States Supreme Court in "Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc.," hostile environment harassment occurs when "the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" (Cross and LeRoy Miller 497). Facts of the Case: In 1986, Teresa Harris, who was
Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforced the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by ensuring a legislative act that would prevent discrimination and extend equal protection under the law. The bill in its entirety protects all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, national background, and gender. It was and still is considered to be a landmark bill, in spite of the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment already technically guarantees equal protection
Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Rights Review List a: Civil Rights Act of 1964 & ADA The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, schools, and other arenas. The law protected historically discriminated-against groups such as women, religious groups, and other ethnic minorities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 expanded the protections of the original Civil Rights Act to include disabilities. However, what constitutes a
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now