1, Discussion respond to Adam:
Class,
The case I chose was Desert Cab Inc. v. Marino, 823 P.2d 898, 1992 Nev. Lexis 6.
On October 6, 1986, respondent Maria Marino, a cab driver with Yellow-Checker Cab Company (“Yellow-Checker Cab”), and appellant James Edwards, a cab driver with appellant Desert Cab Company (“Desert Cab”), parked their cabs at the taxicab stand of the Sundance Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas to await fares. Marino’s cab occupied the first position in the line and Edwards occupied the third. As Marino stood alongside her cab conversing with the driver of another taxi, Edwards began verbally harassing her from inside his cab. When Marino approached Edwards to inquire as to the reason for the harassment, he jumped from his cab, grabbed Marino by her neck and shoulders, began choking her, and threw her onto the front of his taxicab. A bystander intervened, pulled Edwards off of Marino, and escorted her back to her cab.
Marino sustained injuries that rendered her unable to work for a time. Before she could return to work, Yellow-Checker Cab terminated her. Marino subsequently filed a wrongful termination suit against her former employer.
Marino brought this personal injury action against James Edwards and Desert Cab. At trial, the jury confronted two critical issues: (1) whether Edwards’ tortious conduct arose out of the course and scope of his employment with Desert Cab, and, if so, (2) what damages did Marino suffer as a result of this conduct. Concluding that Edwards’ tortious conduct arose out of the course and scope of his employment, the jury found Desert Cab liable for Marino’s injuries and awarded her $65,000.00 in compensatory damages.
Applying the work-related test, Desert Cab is liable for the intentional tort of its employee Edwards. Edwards was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery which proves Edwardss civil liability to Marino. Edwardss wrongful act of attacking Marino is a prerequisite to imposing liability upon his employer Desert Cab. In order to find Desert Cab liable, Marino still had to establish that Desert Cab was responsible for Edwardss conduct. Under the work-related test, if an agent commits an intentional tort within a work-related time or space during working hours or on the principals premisesthe principal is liable for any injuries caused by the agents intentional torts. Here, when the attack occurred, Edwards, who was working as a taxicab driver, was waiting in line with Marino to pick up passengers. Edwardss attack on Marino was work-related and arose out of the course and scope of Edwardss employment. Under the work-related test, the principal Desert Cab is liable for the intentional tort committed by its agent Edwards.
Desert Cab Inc. v. Marino, 823 P.2d 898, 1992 Nev. Lexis 6. Retrieved from https://www.leagle.com/decision/19921721823p2d89811704 (Links to an external site.)
Please Respond in a Paragraph at least six sentences or more_________________
2, Respond to Dylan:
Kelley v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
Chad Kelley had attended a corporate celebration to kick-off the release of a new product. Well, this celebration was held down river, so the company encouraged people to canoe there. As typical around water there will be some that ensure everyone gets wet and Kelley was tackled and there were two individuals that wanted to dunk him in the water. When tackled Kelley hit his head causing him to suffer a herniated disc.
Kelley filed for workers compensation, while Coke opposed due to the horseplay incident that caused his injury. The trial court ruled in favor of Kelley and the court of appeals upheld this ruling due to Kelley being injured at Coke who had knowledge and consent of the employer to be there.
This ruling is correct in my view because within the description is does not state Kelley was involved with the horseplay going on, but rather others employed by Coke. This happened at a Coke function, that was mandatory, so Kelley had no other choice to be there.
RESPONSE WITH AT LEAST 6 sentences or Paragraphs_________________________________
(see below) and provide a summary (approx. 150 words) supporting either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the facts of the case and your interpretation of the law. You need to do some research on the case selected and provide links to that research which assisted you in your decision. Check at least 2 other sources as part of your independent research. Respond to another student’s posting for full credit.
Agency, Employment, and Discrimination Law
Chapter 19 Equal Opportunity in Employment
U.S. Supreme Court, Washington DC The U.S. Supreme Court has decided many major cases concerning rights and safeguards provided by federal equal opportunity in employment statutes. Learning Objectives and Chapter Contents Introduction to Equal Opportunity in Employment Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 19.1 Describe the functions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 19.2 Describe the scope of coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LANDMARK LAW Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Race and Color Discrimination 19.3 Identify race and color discrimination that violates Title VII. Case 19.1 Bennett v. Nucor Corporation LANDMARK LAW Civil Rights Act of 1866 National Origin Discrimination 19.4 Identify national origin discrimination that violates Title VII. BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT English-Only Rules in the Workplace Gender Discrimination 19.5 Define gender discrimination and describe the scope of protection against gender discrimination. LANDMARK LAW Pregnancy Discrimination Act Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination 19.6 Describe how members of the LGBTQ community are protected from job discrimination. CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING Sexual Orientation Protected by Title VII Harassment 19.7 Describe racial, sexual, and other forms of harassment. CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING Sexual Harassment Case 19.2 Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Offensive Electronic Communications Constitute Sexual and Racial Harassment Religious Discrimination 19.8 Describe an employers duty to make reasonable accommodation for employees religions. Case 19.3 U.S. Supreme Court CASE Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. Defenses to a Title VII Action 19.9 List and describe defenses that may be raised by an employer against a charge of violating Title VII. Equal Pay Act 19.10 Describe the scope of coverage of the Equal Pay Act. Age Discrimination 19.11 Describe the scope of coverage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Discrimination Against Individuals with Disabilities 19.12 Describe the protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act. LANDMARK LAW Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act Genetic Information Discrimination 19.13 Define genetic information discrimination Protection from Retaliation 19.14 Explain the protections afforded employees from employer retaliation. Veterans and Military Personnel 19.15 Describe employment protections for veterans and military personnel. Affirmative Action 19.16 Define affirmative action in employment. What people have always sought is equality of rights before the law. For rights that were not open to all equally would not be rights. Cicero (106 BCE43 BCE) De Officilis, Book II, Chapter XII Introduction to Equal Opportunity in Employment We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal. Elizabeth Cady Stanton (18151902) Under common law, employers could terminate an employee at any time and for any reason. In this same vein, employers were free to hire and promote anyone they chose, without violating the law. This situation often created unreasonable hardship on employees and erected employment barriers to certain minority classes. Starting in the 1960s, Congress began enacting a comprehensive set of federal laws that eliminated major forms of employment discrimination. These laws, which were passed to guarantee equal opportunity in employment to all employees and job applicants, have been broadly interpreted by the federal courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court. States have also enacted antidiscrimination laws. Many state and local governments have adopted laws that prevent discrimination in employment. This chapter discusses equal opportunity in employment laws.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]