HRM 593_Week 3_Case Analysis

docx

School

DeVry University, Houston *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

379

Subject

Management

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by Toshimamartin38

Week 3: Case Analysis 1 DeVry/Keller Graduate School of Management HRM 593- Employment Law Week 3: Case Analysis Toshima Martin 03/12/2024

Week 3: Case Analysis 2 Case Analysis Case 1: Case: Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, 2017 WL 5443146 (M.D. Fla. 2017), (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 47) Parties: The offended party ( Generations Salon Services); litigant (Sheryl Cangemi) Facts: The company Generations Salon Services classified a suit against Ms. Sheryl Cangemi on the grounds that she and another previous worker disregarded their non-complete clause following discontinuation of employment. As per Generations Salon’s non-compete clause, any representative is limited from working in a competitive position with respect to a time of one year following discontinuation of their business. Ms. Sheryl Cangemi left Generations Salon in the month of January 2017 yet started Silver Salons in the month of November 2016 unintentionally to her manager. Ms. Cangemi perceived that that there was no abuse in her non- complete. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 47 Issue: The inquiries for this case were whether the company Generations Salon has shown a probability of progress on the benefits of its cases against Ms. Cangemi in view of the prohibitive contracts and whether the prohibitive pledges try to safeguard genuine financial matters. Applicable Law(s): Non-compete clause (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 29) Holding: The company Generations Salon has laid out a significant probability of progress on its case that the prohibitive contracts it looks to implement are important to safeguard its genuine financial matters in its client connections, classified data, and generosity. Subsequently, Ages

Week 3: Case Analysis 3 Salon fulfills the primer order prerequisite of showing that prevailing on the benefits of its standard break of agreement claims against Ms. Cangemi and Calianno. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 47) Reasoning: The court decided that the company Generations Salon held private organization data qualified for security in accordance with Florida Resolution segment 542.335 and Pennsylvania regulation. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 47) Case Questions: What elective truth example could adjust the court's perspective on whether Calianno and Ms. Cangemi violated their non-contend arrangements? An elective truth design that could adjust the court's perspective would be if the two individuals took the private data from the Generation Salon. If Generation Salon did not have its proprietary Stanglware database, would this case be resolved differently? I don't think the case would've been tackled contrastingly in the event that the company Generation Salon didn't have this specific data set. The case actually would've been in support of themselves regardless of whether they had an alternate data set that is just open for workers. Is it fair to restrict Cangemi and Calianno from using their knowledge to begin their own business in this industry? I don't believe that it was reasonable to confine the two individuals from utilizing their insight to start their own place of business yet the two of them ought to have been conformed to their non-contend arrangements to steer clear of being sued.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 3: Case Analysis 4 Conclusion: The court administered the offended party had protectable interests in its client connections as well as the private business data it created to additional those connections and upheld the non-contend arrangements against the respondent. Case 2 Case: Jones V. Robinson Property Group L.P., d/b/a Horseshoe Casino and Hotel 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir 2005) page 342 in our textbook Parties: Robinson Property Group (Defendant); Ralph Jones (Offended party) Facts: Mr. Ralph Jones is a black male who lives in the state of Mississippi. He is an Ensured poker seller who worked at state-wide casinos. He likewise worked in different branches of the many casinos. Mr. Jones was a region of the World Planet Poker Competition. Mr. Jones managing abilities are superior to the typical vendor. Robinson Property Gathering had opened the Horseshoe Gambling club and Inn in the year of nineteen-ninety-five. Mr. Lambert was the poker room floor director at the Horseshoe Gambling club, Mr. Jones claims he was looked for and denied work at the club in the year of nineteen-ninety-four. Earlier, Mr. Jones had applied for a Poker Room Floor individual and a poker vendor, Mr. Jones was not recruited for the two positions. After fourteen days Mr. Jones went to converse with the Overseer of human resources Anna West, Mr. Jones expressed to her that his non employing was because of prejudice. Mr. Jones than continued to pose an inquiry and inquired as to whether the club disliked recruiting blacks as poker vendor on the grounds that from what saw there was no dark representatives working at the club as poker sellers at the hour of Mr. jones guarantee. Mr. Lambert was called to come and answer Mr. Jones questions, Mr. Lambert expressed that there wasn't any certified African American poker vendor in Tunica Province. Mr. Jones answered back and said there is

Week 3: Case Analysis 5 something like five qualified poker vendors including himself, Mr. Lambert was reclaimed by the charge that Mr. Jones was saying not long after Mr. Lambert said he had offered Mr. Jones a Situation as a poker seller and Mr. Jones had would not work and endured in his racial claims, Mr. Lambert sentiments ended up being wounded by Mr. Jones, and he finished their discussion. Mr. Jones denies he was at any point offered the situation as a poker vendor. Between the extended period of the year nineteen-ninety-four and the time of the year nineteen-ninety-five, Mr. Jones had submitted applications at the very least multiple times. The Horseshoe Casino utilized Mr. Jones only not as a poker vendor but rather in different regions in the gambling club and once in a while as a transitory poker seller for high profile competitions, but Mr. jones was not a super durable representative for Horseshoe Gambling Casino. The record had uncovered that the Club was employing poker vendors for stable situations around then they as a rule enlist forty to around forty-five poker sellers. Issues: Was Mr. Jones solidly in his cases about the casino organization? Disinclined recruiting African American individuals as poker merchants due to their race? Under Title VII Managers can't come up short or decline to recruit or release against individuals in view of their race. Applicable Law: Title VII infringement would preclude a business from oppressing any representative for documenting claims, charges, affirming, helping or aiding, or participating in an examination against the organization. The Respondents had wouldn't offer Mr. Jones the chance of work as a poker vendor with their organization due to his race. For Mr. Jones to deliver a Title VII claim, the courts would initially investigate Mr. Jones' future business' lead and see the rundown of directions that has disregarded his privileges under the part 1981. Title VII likewise expresses that no business can victimize any future workers or potentially representatives since they might raise worries about race.

Week 3: Case Analysis 6 Holding: Under audit of the two individuals' contentions and record for the situation the court tracks down that Mr. Jones demonstrated direct proof of segregation. Title VII expresses that no business can fizzle, decline to enlist, release any individual and additionally in any case to oppress any person regarding their remuneration, terms, condition, or potentially honors of work, in light of the individual's race. Reasoning: The Justice's choice depended on the proof gave. "Previously mentioned proof had demonstrated that without deduction that race was the premise in work choices in the poker room at the Horseshoe." (1995, Bennett-Alexander, Sunrise, Work Regulation for Business 10e) With all the proof it didn't have to show that a singular's race was not the sole premise in work to comprise direct proof. The observers Thomas and Mims had obviously unequivocally spread out that the choice that was being made in the poker room had truth be told involved race and separation in decision making for work at the Horseshoe Casino. The individual Mr. Jones had introduced direct proof of race separation; he likewise had laid out a prima facie case. The court of justice had conceded outline judgment for RPG. Mr. Jones case was sent back to the court system for additional procedures. Case Questions: Given the evidence, do you understand why the lower court would have found that no race discrimination had taken place? Explain? No, I fail to really see the reason why they didn't see that the declaration of workers who work intently by the individual who was settling on the choice for recruiting future representatives for the club. Offering expressions about why Mr. Lambert wouldn't enlist any African American individuals. This was sufficiently clear to demonstrate this was a race segregating and an infringement of Title VII.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 3: Case Analysis 7 What do you think of the statements that management allegedly made? Do they seem like appropriate bases for making workplace decisions? Explain. I thought the explanations were extremely unseemly disgustingly not appropriate; however, Mississippi is known giving a racial past. I feel these are not suitable work environment choice since there is many individuals who truly has an enthusiasm in the profession, they really do very much like Mr. Jones would be exceptionally disheartened at the way that they have been focused on in a racial segregates circumstance for business. My suggestion on the court's choice is I think it was proper I feel the past justice system ought to have seen what the ongoing justice system has seen. It doesn't make any difference how one sees it was an immediate infringement of Title VII. Conclusion: My proposal on the court's choice is suitable. I feel the past justice of the court ought to have seen what the ongoing court seen. It was an immediate infringement of Title VII. Case 3: Case: Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 504 Parties: Offended party (Meritor Savings Bank); Respondent (Mechelle Vinson and FSB) Facts: Mechelle Vinson was employed as a teller-student by Sidney Taylor, the bank office chief. She had been advanced a couple of times in her long stretches of working there to teller, head teller, and right-hand branch chief upon merit. Taylor was a mentor to Vinson until they began taking part in sexual exercises. The sexual exercises happened until Vinson was in a consistent relationship with another person. She documented a suit against Taylor guaranteeing that he sexual badgering her. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 504)

Week 3: Case Analysis 8 Issue: The inquiry the court was attempting to choose was whether the Civil Rights Act restricted against antagonistic sexual conditions or was the law restricted to unmistakable monetary segregation in the working environment. Applicable Law(s): Title VII, Hostile Environment Inappropriate behavior (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 483) Holding: The court interestingly, resolved that the sexual circumstance among Vinson and Taylor was comprised as an unfriendly climate lewd behavior. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 504) Reasoning: The evidence that was specified by Vinson, the court had the option to preclude compensation lewd behavior. The respondent, charges for this situation which included unavoidable badgering and criminal lead were sufficiently adequate to guarantee for threatening lewd behavior. Case Questions: As a manager, what would you have done if Vinson had come to you with her story? Assuming Vinson would've come to me about the lewd behavior, I would've told the harasser to leave the premises, follow my organization's strategies for detailing inappropriate behavior, and urge her to go to court and tell the harasser that she would document a case against him. Under the circumstances, should it matter that Vinson “voluntarily” had sex with Taylor? That she received her regular promotions? Explain. For this situation, since it ended up being what is happening, Vinson "intentionally" having intercourse with Taylor would've wrecked her case. Taylor was attempting to make her case not appear to be substantial, however it was legitimate for a threatening climate lewd behavior administering.

Week 3: Case Analysis 9 As a manager, how would you determine whom to believe? In my opinion, there's no certain approach to coming clean with which individual is being truthful, except if there are observers in the working environment that need to affirm what is happening beyond the harasser and harasser. Conclusion: The court held that compensation isn't the main type of lewd behavior in the working environment. Due to the extreme inescapability of the circumstance and the idea of the lewd gestures, the court attested that unfriendly climate orientation segregation was significant under Title VII. Case 4: Case: Wedow v. City of Kansas City, Missouri 442 F.3d441(8th Cir. 2006), (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 457) Parties: The offended party was Ms. Wedow and the litigant was the City of Kansas City, Missouri Facts: Ms. Wedow was one of the female firemen working for the Kansas City Fire Division. To take care of her business appropriately, she required a uniform that would accommodate her body type. Sadly, the local group of fire-fighters just had outfits made for male firemen and the ladies had to wear the loose regalia. She likewise griped about not having legitimate bathroom or shower offices and in correlation, to the male specialists, she wasn't treated with the similar treatment as male firemen. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 457) Issue: The court was attempting to decide if Ms. Wedow's suit against the Kansas City Fire Office was at risk for a gender discrimination claim. Applicable Law(s): Title VII, Equivalent Compensation Act (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 400)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 3: Case Analysis 10 Holding: The justice of courts attested Ms. Wedow's case and established that the proof she expressed was gender discrimination. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 457) Reasoning: The court system concurred that being expected to function as a fireman with insufficient defensive dress and lacking bathroom and shower offices are definitely not a simple burden. These circumstances can risk a lady's capacity to play out the center elements of her work in a protected and productive way. (Bennett-Alexander, 2021, p. 457) Case Questions: Are you surprised that this is a 2006 case? Why or why not? I'm extremely shocked about this particular case that occurred. You would imagine that at that point that orientation separation in a thorough office would have appropriate facilities for women. How do you think the fire department should have responded when the women registered complaints about their uniforms? Explain. I feel that the office ought to have been quickly investigated the enrolled protests the ladies put in with the goal that they could begin getting them estimated for fitting outfits for them to wear. Why do you think the fire department treated the female employees as it did? I feel that the local group of fire-fighters couldn't have cared less about their female workers. They realize that the ladies enrolled protests and failed to address it until Ms. Wedow recorded suit for orientation segregation. Conclusion: In light of the ill-advised regalia, bathrooms, and shower offices, ladies have enlisted grievances to the local group of fire-fighters about not having uniformity very much like

Week 3: Case Analysis 11 the male specialists in the group. The office had some awareness of the protests and decided not to quickly make any kind of difference with the circumstance. The court found that in spite of the local group of fire-fighters' contentions, the circumstance was controlled as orientation separation for the female firemen. Case 5: Case: Chandler V. Fast Lane INC.,868 F. Supp.1138 (E.D. Ark., W. Div. 1994) page 345 Parties: Fast Lane Inc. (Defendant); Chandler (Plaintiff) Facts: Chandler, a Caucasian female stated that she was a casualty of biased business practice by her bosses. Chandler is a previous café director for the organization where she worked. She guarantees her boss scrutinized her endeavors to utilize and advance African Americans representatives, she likewise said that this was a consequence of the state of her work which became excruciating, and she had to leave her situation as a director. The business contends that since they were affirmed to have embraced prejudicial employing and special practice that designated just African American while no white individual has no remaining to state a Title VII case started upon this strategy. At the point when a business oppresses any worker's freedoms, to document any charges, Affirm, or participate in any implementation activities, this disregards Title VII IN 42 U.S.C.A sec 2000e-3 (a). Presently the Litigant is the business Fast track INC, they guarantee that main Individuals of color were impacted by the prejudicial recruiting and advancement practice. In other word as per the Respondent they wouldn't be a way a white individual can appropriately assess a Title VII claim on these principles. As indicated by the litigant there is no reason for bringing this case under the watchful eye of the court, and the

Week 3: Case Analysis 12 respondent additionally says that African Americans were the ones in particular who was not advanced in job promotion. Issue: Wat are the prerequisites of Title VII sec 2000e-3(a) and will it give an at first sight structure on Chandler's case? Applicable Law(s): Title VII infringement would deny a business from oppressing any worker for documenting claims, charges, affirming, helping or aiding, or taking part in an examination against the organization. The Respondents had would not offer Chandler the chance to advance every one of the African Americans workers that she made due. Thus, for Chandler to deliver a Title VII claim, the courts would initially investigate Chandler's manager's direct and see the rundown of guidelines that has disregarded her freedoms under the segment 1981. Title VII likewise expresses that no business can victimize any of their representatives since they might raise worries about unfriendly conduct in the work environment. Holding: Title VII 200e-3 has given the legitimate construction to Chandler 's victorious win in justice system. We should take a gander at how she partook in a Title VII that would safeguard the resistance exercises and Chandler had met all that is the hypothetical proof verification of her case. The result it showed that she was affected in a negative manner in her work activity. Reasoning: The court's decision depended on a typical harmony between workers' privileges and the freedoms of the businesses. The court thinking was that congress had made a direct yet gigantic decree to lay out Title VII that sex, religion, race and public beginning were not relevant of worker recruiting, some evaluation, and remuneration included. Boss can consider other capability and trademark attribute with regards to pursuing business choices and decisions and the regulation wouldn't endeavor to stop or confine this. For the purpose rule Title VII would

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Week 3: Case Analysis 13 safeguard the adaptability of the businesses by keeping out specific things that can cause racial separation. In the text as per the lawmakers it was planned to limit laborers and representatives from taking race, sex, or public beginning into thought while pursuing work choice and decisions. No Business can't oppress their representative by not recruiting or terminating them, they can't deny them work. Case Questions: What do you think of the employer’s argument that since its policies discriminated against blacks, the white employee should not be able to bring a suit for discrimination? Explain. The business' contention depends on the reason that on the off chance that their strategies excessively impacted dark workers, a white representative shouldn't have remained to bring a segregation claim. Be that as it may, the court's thinking proposes in any case. It perceives that a business practice that encroaches on a white individual's all in all correct to connect with African Americans is significant under Title VII. Do you understand the court’s reasoning that the white employee was being discriminated against by not being able to hire and promote black employees? Explain. Indeed, the court's thinking is established in the possibility that oppressive strategies can hurt representatives no matter what their race. By keeping the white worker from recruiting and advancing dark associates, the business successfully confined her expert open doors. This restriction comprises separation under Title VII, which expects to guarantee equivalent work amazing open doors for everybody, paying little heed to race or nationality. Conclusion: In my opinion, the court's choice was fair since Chandler had demonstrated that her boss had indeed victimized her since she needed to enlist and advance African American workers

Week 3: Case Analysis 14 since she was white. Her boss had guaranteed that she reserved no privilege to sue them under Title VII, they said it didn't relate to her it was just coordinated towards African Americans as it were. What the business did was established an unfriendly workplace for Chandler which is the reason the court had denied the business their movement to excuse chandler, they said the excusal was just on the segregation.

Week 3: Case Analysis 15 References Bennett-Alexander. (2021). Employment Law for Business. McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US). https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781264126101 Chandler v. Fast Lane, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 1138 | Casetext Search + Citator. (n.d.). Casetext.com. Retrieved March 12, 1994, from https://casetext.com/case/chandler-v-fast-lane-inc Jones v. Robinson Property Group, L.P., 427 F.3d 987 | Casetext Search + Citator. (n.d.). Casetext.com. https://casetext.com/case/jones-v- robinson-property-group-lp Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). (2020). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/57/ Osborne Assocs., Inc. v. Cangemi, Case No. 3:17-cv-1135-J-34MCR | Casetext Search + Citator. (n.d.). Casetext.com. https://casetext.com/case/osborne-assocs-inc-v-sheryl-cangemi- julie-calianno-silver-salons-spas-llc

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

HRM 593_Week 3_Case Analysis

Related Documents