1. Sexual Discrimination: Does Girly have a via claim for intentional sexual discrimination, that is that she is being treated differently based on her gender? Reference specific facts from the case and apply them to the law to reach your final opinion. 2. Sexual Harassment: Does Girly have a viable claim of sexual harassment against MMLP based on "quid pro quo" sexual harassment OR hostile working environment. Both types are discussed in your text.

1. Sexual Discrimination: Does Girly have a via claim for intentional sexual discrimination, that is that she is being treated differently based on her gender? Reference specific facts from the case and apply them to the law to reach your final opinion. 2. Sexual Harassment: Does Girly have a viable claim of sexual harassment against MMLP based on "quid pro quo" sexual harassment OR hostile working environment. Both types are discussed in your text.

Similar questions

Olga, a resident of Maine, was recently injured by a defective product produced by Home Appliance Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware but has its company headquarters in Virgina. Olga purchased the defective product in Maine. Olga is suing Home Appliance for $60,000. Which courts would have personal jurisdiction in this case? Would a federal court have jurisdiction? Why or why not?
Moises and Rutledge are discussing their views on the law. Moises believes that people should give up some of their rights to the government, but they should be able to retain other inalienable rights. Rutledge believes that the law is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state which commands what is right and prohibits what is wrong. Kilroy overhears their conversation and jumps in with his own belief, saying that the law is a social construct that should provide stability. order, and security. He also said that he believes people should relinquish all of their rights to the state. Which philosophers would agree with Moises, Rutledge, and Kilroy, respectively? O Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke O Blackstone, Hobbes, Montesquieu O Locke, Blackstone, Hobbes O Montesquieu, Blackstone, Hobbes O Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone
Case4 One afternoon, the plaintiff (P) and her husband were out driving for picnic together with their three children. They pull-over in a lay-by, a designated pave area beside a main road where cars can stop temporarily, for a picnic and the plaintiff took one of the children across the road to pick flowers. The defendant, Mr. Berry (D), was driving recklessly and crashed into the couple’s van, where the plaintiff’s husband and the other children were preparing. The plaintiff’s husband was seriously hurt by the crash and died at the scene a few hours later while most of the children suffered injuries. The plaintiff witnessed the entire event and its aftermath, developed long-term “morbid depression”, consequently. Please state the four basic elements of negligence. Plaintiff sued Mr. Berry for the cost and damages as a result from nervous shock that she suffered due to the negligence of the Defendant. Please state your reasons
Maranda says that she is fed up with the way a certain employer in Kennesaw treats employees and that she is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. Although she is not a lawyer, Maranda believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that a court will appreciate her attempt to make things better for the employees involved. Can Maranda act as plaintiff for the employees? Yes, so long as they file no objection Yes, so long as she gets permission slips from them No because venue is lacking No because she lacks standing Yes, so long as she gives any money he receives to them
Michael Hauck claimed that he was discharged by his employer, Sabine Pilot Service, because he refused its direction to perform the illegal act of pumping the bilges of the employer’s vessel into the waterways. Hauck was an employee at will, and Sabine contends that it therefore had the right to discharge him without having to show cause. Hauck brought a wrongful discharge action against Sabine. Decide.Please give your answer using the IRAC format. Issue: Call of the QuestionRule: Rule of Law to be applied to properly answer the questionAnalysis: Applying the rule of law to the facts of the problem presentedConclusion: Answer to the Issue
Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Locate Alberta's Court of Justice Civil Procedure Regulation. Pursuant to Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, a civil claim must clearly state? Answer:
In eminent domain cases, an individual private party may not benefit from the government's taking of private property for a public purpose. True False
in the Escobar case, Universal Health Services, Inc Petitioner v. United States and Massachusetts, es rel. Julio Escobar, April 19, 2016. This unit treated the relators’ allegations in this case as presenting legally false claims. Explain why the relators’ allegations in the case could actually be viewed as presenting factually false claims.
discuss the concept of the effective assistance of counsel, why the Court looks at the concept of ineffective assistance of counsel, and what the defendant must prove in order for the court to determine if the defendant lacked the effective assistance of counsel.
1-5. THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT. Sandra White operated a travel agency. To obtain lower airline fares for her nonmilitary clients, she booked military-rate travel by forwarding fake military identification cards to the airlines. The U.S. government charged White with identity theft, which requires the “use” of another’s identification. As background, the court in the White case had two cases that represented precedents. In the first case, David Miller obtained a loan to buy land by representing that certain investors had approved the loan when, in fact, they had not. Miller’s conviction for identity theft was overturned because he had merely said that the investors had done something when they had not. According to the court, this was not the “use” of another’s identification. In the second case, Kathy Medlock, an ambulance service operator, had transported patients for whom there was no medical necessity to do so. To obtain payment, Medlock had forged a physician’s signature. The court…
Which of the following health policy provisions states that the producer does NOT have the authority to change the policy or wave any of its provisions? O A Time Limit on Certain Defenses OB. OC OD. Reinstatement Entire Contract Change of Beneficiary MM QUATE Ahiler 372-256-906