fchb ch 5 legal cases

Question 1

Ricci v. DeStefano 2009

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 1998

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

Burlington Industries v. Ellerth 1998

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire 2007

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Burlington Northern v. White

Answer 5

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.”

Question 6

Kimel, et al v. Florida Board of Regents 2000

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Answer 7

FLSA for public employees

Question 8

O’Connor v. Ortega 1987

Answer 8

fourth amendment ground rules for government employee work place search

Question 9

City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 2010

Answer 9

fourth amendment ground rules for government employee work place search -pager used by cop to page his lover

Question 10

City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 2010

Answer 10

fourth amendment ground rules for government employee work place search -pager used by cop to page his lover. go slow case

Question 11

Michigan v. Tyler (436 U.S. 499 (1978)

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Michigan v. Clifford (464 U.S. 287 (1984)),

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Tyler and Clifford left fire service investigators with a simple rule of thumb­ when in doubt, get a warrant.

Answer 13

Tyler and Clifford left fire service investigators with a simple rule of thumb­ when in doubt, get a warrant.

Question 14

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.

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Camara v. San Francisco (387 U.S. 523, 1967) and See v. Seattle (387 U.S. 541, 1967

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Pickering v. Board of Education, (391 U.S. 563, 1968

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Garcetti v. Ceballos (547 U.S. 410, 2006)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Williams v. Valdosta (689 F.2d 964, 1982)

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

(Germann v. Kansas City, 776 F. 2d 761, 1985)

Answer 19

When Germann was not promoted to battalion chief, he sued, alleging retaliation for, among other acts, his “completely obstructed” letter.

Question 20

Foley v. Town of Randolph (No. 09-1558, 2010),

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education (470 U.S. 532 (1985))

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

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)).

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Peterson v. City of Mesa (83 P3d 35 (AZ, 1994

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

” (Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Washington 2d 174 (1988),

Answer 24

a duty to all is a duty to no one: so no individual can establish the duty relationship that a negligence action requires;

Question 25

Lewis v. St. Petersburg, 260 F3d 1260 (2001

Answer 25

, 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.

Question 26

The case National Labor Relations Board v. American MedicalResponse

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Ricci v. DeStefano,

Answer 27

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.