Final Exam (cases)

Question 1

School Board (Defendant) –vs- Arline (Plaintiff) (US 1987)

Answer 1

➤Facts:
→Plaintiff 1957 was diagnosed with TB (20 year remission)
→Elementary school teacher (1966-1979)
→(1977-78) 1979 she has a relapse
→She is then given a paid leave
→Ultimately she is terminated
➤Procedure:
→Rehabilitation Act (handicap)
→Admin. Hg (Plaintiff) → US district Court (Plaintiff)
•“Contagious” disorder is not a handicap
➤Issue:
→Whether plaintiff is “handicapped” under Rehabilitation Act?
➤Holding: Yes
➤Reasoning: Contagious doesn’t mean not handicapped (HIV)
➤Disposition:
→Plaintiff (on remand) must prove she is “otherwise qualified” to teach

Question 2

Chevron (Defendant) –vs- Echazabul (Plaintiff) (US 2002)

Answer 2

➤Facts:
→ Plaintiff worked for independent contractor → Chevron
• (Defense; EEOC regulations → “threat to self” regulation)
→Applies two times to work for Chevron
• Receives offer, but has to be subject to medical exam (physical)
→Plaintiff has a liver condition (toxins)
→Plaintiff is moved then terminated
➤Procedure:
→ADA → US district → US Court of Appeal [ADA→ defense→ “threat to others”]
➤Issue:
→Whether EEOC regulation is valid?
➤Holding: YES, the regulation is valid
➤Reasoning:
→Wrongful death
→Excessive sick leave
→Possible violation of OSHA rules

Question 3

Visick (Plaintiff) –vs- Fowler Co. (Defendant) (NI 2002)

Answer 3

➤Facts:   OBESITY
→ Plaintiff has metabolic disorder which any food is turned into fat
→ Bariatric (bypass) surgery (lost 350 pounds)
→ Plaintiff applies to defendants company (she weighed about 400 pounds)
→ She is hired
→ Day 2, plaintiff discloses disability
o	Personal calls made at work
o	People then questioned her work ethic
o	Day 4 she is terminated
➤Procedure:
→ NJLAD (NJ Law Against Discrimination) (Under “Disability”)
→ NJ Superior Court 
→ Was granted a jury trial
→ Verdict: plaintiff gets $50,000
➤Issue: 
→ Whether plaintiff was handicapped under the NJLAD
➤Holding: YES  
→ Evidence
o	Plaintiff’s testimony 
o	Medical records
o	Doctor testimony
➤Disposition: Remanded (for new trial)
→ Faulty jury instruction

Question 4

Ledbetter v Goodyear (US 2007)

Answer 4

➤Facts- 1979 1998 (retires)
→ Goodyear(the Plaintiff) was the only woman at the company and said she was making 3,727. The lowest paid male was making 600 dollars more than her.(obviously, don’t memorize numbers).
➤Procedure- (Filed two claims…)
→An EEOC complaint—-> Title VII(sex discrimination) (1998/180 days)
→“Equal Pay Act “ claim.
➤Issue
→ Whether plaintiffs claim was timely?
➤Holding- NO
➤Reasoning
→ The court rejects the “continuing violation” theory.

Question 5

O’Connor vs Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp

Answer 5

➤Facts- Plaintiff was employed from 1978-1990. → He was terminated when he was 56 years old. He was replaced by a 40 year old man.
➤Procedure- ADEA claim–> US District Court(sides with defendant) then goes to US court of appeal(also side with defendant)
1. Does he belong to a protected class?yes.
2. Was he qualified for the job?yes.
3. Did he suffer adverse employment action?yes.
4. Was he replaced by someone outside of the protected class?no.- His replacement was also in the age range protected under the ADEA. they still allowed him to continue, even though he didn’t meet this requirement.
➤Issue- Whether the plaintiff can bring ADEA claim if replaced by someone also 40 and over?
➤Holding-Yes.

Question 6

Autoworkers(Union) vs Johnson Control

Answer 6

➤Facts-
→Battery manufacturing company- concerned with the peoples exposure to led . health impact on fetuses and reproductive health.1997 policy–> Employees are warned about the health risks. 1982 policy–> “Fetal Protection Policy”- Any females with the ability to have children are not allowed to work in certain areas where they will be exposed to led. They must provide documentation showing that they cannot get pregnant.
➤Procedure-
→Class action-> Sex Discrimination (Title 7).—>US District Court(sides with defendant –>US Court Appeal(defendant)
➤Issue-
→ Whether defendant can discriminate against female employees based on their ability to become pregnant.
➤Holding-
→NO, this policy violates title 7.
The policy illegally targets women.

Question 7

Thompson v North American(US 2011)

Answer 7

➤Facts-
→The plaintiff and his fiance are employed with the defendant. The fiance goes to the EEOC for sex discrimination.
➤Procedure-
→Plaintiff goes to EEOC(retaliation)
➤Issue-
→whether defendants term of plaintiff violates title 7 as retaliation?
➤Holding-
→Yes.3rd party claim permissible. (Must prove that the couple is engaged)

Question 8

Dothard, et al (Defendant) –vs- Rawlinson, et al (Plaintiff) (US 1977)

Answer 8

➤Facts:
→ Plaintiff 20 years old →applied with defendant “prison guard”
→ Defendants policy- minimum height: 5’2”; minimum weight: 120 lbs. (“statutory”)
o	“Strength”
-	Plaintiff denied job
➤Procedure:
-	Reg. 204 → sex segregation 
o	High risk population
-	Title VII (sex) → EEOC
o	US District Court (panel of 3 judges [usually just one])
➤Issue #1: 
Whether the height/weight policy violates Title VII as sex discrimination?
➤Holding: YES
→ Disp. Treatment
o	Show intent
→ Disp. Impact
o Plaintiff must show:
•	Facially neutral policy
•	Disp. Impact on protect class (sex)
o Defendant must show
•	Policy is business or job related
➤Issue #2:
→ Whether Reg. 204 violates Title VII
➤Holding: NO 
→ BFOQ (Bon Fide Occupational Qualification)
o	Had enough evidence to back up

Question 9

Eli (Plaintiff) –vs- SEPTA (Defendant) (3rd Circuit 2007)

Answer 9

➤Facts:
→ Plaintiff applies King Paratransit
o	Conditionally Hired
→ Needs to have a criminal background check (policy) 
→ Defendants find out plaintiff was convicted for 2nd degree murder
o	This occurred 40 years ago
→ Plaintiff is then terminated
➤Procedure:
→ Title VII (Race) → EEOC
→ Plaintiff has to show (Disp. Impact)
o	Facially neutral 
o	Has to have disp. Impact)
→ Defends must show
o	Business related (justified)
→ Expert Testimony
o	Disabled → victims
o	Convicts more likely to repeat
➤Issue:
→ Whether defendants policy violates Title VII
➤Holding: NO

Question 10

Raytheon (Defendant) –vs- Hernandez (Plaintiff) (US 2003)

Answer 10

➤Facts:
→ Plaintiff worked for 25 years
→ Drug test (positive)
o Was using beer and cocaine → forced to resign
→ Next 2 years → becomes church guy, goes to rehab (alcoholics anonymous/AA)
→ Reapplies to defendants employment (he violated work rule)
→ Denied reapplication
➤Procedure:
→ EEOC→ ADA/disability case (discrim claim)
→ HR letter that violating ADA for prior drug use
➤Issue:
→ Whether the lower court used the correct legal standard (Is drug addiction a disability under the ADA?)
o Disp. Impact
o Disp. Treatment (not need to show intent)
➤Holding:
→ Court of Appeals
→ Used Wrong Standards
→ REMANDED
o No- for current use
o Yes- for past addiction