fchb ch 5 legal cases Flashcards
Ricci v. DeStefano 2009
City of New Haven, Connecticut, decision to throw out exam results after the exam had been given (and scores assigned) to avoid a potential disparate-impact lawsuit was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that New Haven’s decision discriminated against the firefighters who passed the test.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 1998
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of race, national origin, religious belief, age-and gender-sexual harassment-in
for workplace sexual harass ment, but they could limit (or eliminate) that liability through workplace training, development of effective harassment claim-response systems, and prompt (and appropriate) response to harassment complaints.
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth 1998
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of race, national origin, religious belief, age-and gender-sexual harassment-in
for workplace sexual harass ment, but they could limit (or eliminate) that liability through workplace training, development of effective harassment claim-response systems, and prompt (and appropriate) response to harassment complaints.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire 2007
Lilly Ledbetter, a longtime employee of Goodyear Tire, was entitled to damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when she found out, just before her retirement, that, over her career, she’d been paid substantially less than comparably trained and educated men.
Burlington Northern v. White
sued for discrimination about being reassigned a different job after filing a complaint. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in her favor. The Court defined the nature of retaliation that violates the Civil Rights Act as follows: “In the present context [actionable retaliation] means that the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”
Kimel, et al v. Florida Board of Regents 2000
Age discrimination act: Kimel, et al v. Florida Board of Regents, et al (120 SupCt 631 [2000]), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ADEA did not apply at all to state or local government employees in states that have retained sovereign immunity doctrines
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
FLSA for public employees
O’Connor v. Ortega 1987
fourth amendment ground rules for government employee work place search
City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 2010
fourth amendment ground rules for government employee work place search -pager used by cop to page his lover
City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 2010
fourth amendment ground rules for government employee work place search -pager used by cop to page his lover. go slow case
Michigan v. Tyler (436 U.S. 499 (1978)
Arson Investigation-the U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent an owner’s or occupant’s consent, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution required a criminal search warrant for a fire investigation
Michigan v. Clifford (464 U.S. 287 (1984)),
Arson Investigation-The Court gave recognition to investigations that occur while firefighters are still involved in fire-control activities, but held that a warrantless search six hours after firefighters had left the scene violated the Fourth Amendment
Tyler and Clifford left fire service investigators with a simple rule of thumb when in doubt, get a warrant.
Tyler and Clifford left fire service investigators with a simple rule of thumb when in doubt, get a warrant.
Fire investigations have also been substantially affected by three U.S. Supreme Court cases that dealt with standards for admissibility of testimony purporting to be scientific These three cases-Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579, 1993), GE v. Joiner (522 U.S. 136, 1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael (526 U.S. 137, 1999)-define what legal scholars call the Daubert standard.
The Daubert standard makes the judge the gatekeeper for admission of scientific evidence, making sure that such evidence is relevant and reliable and that what is represented as scientific knowledge is, in fact, based on analysis that meets standards of the scientific method
Camara v. San Francisco (387 U.S. 523, 1967) and See v. Seattle (387 U.S. 541, 1967
Camara and See held that fire, building, and similar safety inspections did not require a warrant as long as the owner or occupant consents. But absent consent, and when no emergency exists, Camara and See stated an administrative search warrant was required
Pickering v. Board of Education, (391 U.S. 563, 1968
the U. S Supreme Court overturned the dismissal of a teacher who’d written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper critical of the school board, holding that an employee’s free-speech rights are protected if the employee is speaking as a citizen about a matter of public concern
Garcetti v. Ceballos (547 U.S. 410, 2006)
In Garcetti v. Ceballos (547 U.S. 410, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Pickering’s speaking-as-a-citizen test, holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens, and their speech is thus not entitled to First Amendment protection
Williams v. Valdosta (689 F.2d 964, 1982)
When a union officer was demoted from captain to lieutenant during a reorga nization (even though a vacant captain position existed), a federal court held in Williams v. Valdosta (689 F.2d 964, 1982) that the plaintiff had been demoted because he was “. . . somewhat of a ‘thorn’ in their side through the years . . .” and that the demotion had been in response to Williams’ exercise of his First Amendment rights. The court ordered Williams restored to his previous rank.
(Germann v. Kansas City, 776 F. 2d 761, 1985)
When Germann was not promoted to battalion chief, he sued, alleging retaliation for, among other acts, his “completely obstructed” letter.
Foley v. Town of Randolph (No. 09-1558, 2010),
Randolph, Massachusetts, fire chief Charles Foley’s public statement in the wake of a fatal fire concerning an apparent lack of local-government financial support of fire protection in Randolph was not protected speech, but, rather speech pursuant to his official duties as fire chief.
Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education (470 U.S. 532 (1985))
held that a public employee with a property interest in his or her job couldn’t be deprived of that interest (in the form of termination or long-term suspension) without an opportunity to be heard, and without having had evidence fairly considered.
The U.S. Supreme Court established the framework for balancing of individual and governmental interests in two cases: Skinner V. Railway Labor Executives Association (489 U.S. 602 (1989)) and National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Rabb (489 U. S. 656 (1989)).
Skinner involved a challenge of Federal Railroad Administration regulations requiring drug testing after rail accidents and in cases of violations of certain safety rules
Von Rabb was handed down the same day as Skinner, and relied on the same balancing act: The personal rights of U.S. Treasury agents were held to be less compelling than those of the Treasury in maintaining confidence in agents who carried guns and had access to classified materials.
Peterson v. City of Mesa (83 P3d 35 (AZ, 1994
Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Mesa’s random firefighter drug testing policy was a violation of firefighter Fourth Amendment self-incrimination protection rights because Mesa had not come forward with evidence of a significant drug problem among firefighters. Peterson was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, so Peterson is valid case law only in Arizona.
” (Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Washington 2d 174 (1988),
a duty to all is a duty to no one: so no individual can establish the duty relationship that a negligence action requires;
Lewis v. St. Petersburg, 260 F3d 1260 (2001
, discussed at length whether Florida law provided a duty-doctrine defense to an allegation that
a law enforcement agency’s training was negligently provided or omitted.
The case National Labor Relations Board v. American MedicalResponse
The case National Labor Relations Board v. American MedicalResponse was brought as a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaint against American Medical Response’s (AMR) alleged termination of employee Dawnmarie Souza in part because of disparaging comments (“scumbag”) she’d made about her super visors on her Facebook page
Ricci v. DeStefano,
Ricci v. DeStefano, at least two Supreme Court Justices indicated an interest in directly confronting the issue of whether the concept of disparate impact discrimination is not itself inherently discriminatory.
