Case #5

BUSINESS LAW 101 I am trying to do an I.R.A.C. Brief a Case from business Law. So far I have this: David KRASNER, Plaintiff, v. HSH NORDBANK AG, and Roland Kiser in his personal and official capacities, Defendants. United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 7, 2010. 680 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   FACTS   David KRASNER is suing HSH NORDBANK AG, and Roland Kiser, his employer, for sexual discrimination under Title VII under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Krasner clams Sexual Harassment towards women runs rampant in his work environment. No violation was found from the investigation that was conducted. After which he was fired prompting him to request a right to sue letter from the EEOC. He was granted the letter and proceeded with the lawsuit.    ISSUE  A person must be a victim of Sexual Harassment in order to clam and sue for sexual harassment.      MY QUESTION: (The Aplication part of it.) Below is the link to the Case. This part is asking…

A machine operator employee with a major depressive disorder intermittently takes leaves under the Family and Medical Leave Act, resulting in alleged harassment by her employer surrounding her FMLA usage as well as a transfer to various difficult machines after her return from leave. Two months after her last FMLA leave, she is terminated for “improper phone usage.” [Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 361 F. Supp. 2d 935 (S.D. Iowa, 2005).]  explaining your conclusion regarding whether the scenario constitutes a violation of public policy or a breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Support your conclusion with legal analysis and reasoning. Explain whether any of the scenarios give rise to potential employer liability and what steps should have been taken to avoid the exposure.

Subject: Law on Partnership and Corporation (Philippines) What is the concept of Appraisal Right? Ennumerate and Explain the instances where one can exercise Appraisal Right What are the requirements of a valid appraisal right?

Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) A Question of Ethics—Consumer Rights.  Best Buy, a national electronics retailer, offered a credit card that allowed users to earn “reward points” that could be redeemed for discounts on Best Buy goods. After reading a newspaper advertisement for the card, Gary Davis applied for, and was given, a credit card. As part of the application process, he visited a Web page containing Frequently Asked Questions as well as terms and conditions for the card. He clicked on a button affirming that he understood the terms and conditions. When Davis received his card, it came with seven brochures about the card and the reward point program. As he read the brochures, he discovered that a $59 annual fee would be charged for the card. Davis went back to the Web pages he had visited and found a statement that the card “may” have an annual fee. Davis sued, claiming that the company did not adequately disclose the fee. Applying what you learned…

Your employer penalizes you for not working overtime because you are pregnant, but hecannot prove that overtime requirement is necessary. Your employer may be subjectedto:A. Direct discriminationB. Indirect discriminationC. Discrimination by means of victimizationD. B & CE. None of the above

The “Compliance with Standards Rule” requires that a member who performs professional services, including consulting services, comply with standards promulgated by bodies designated by Council, regardless of whether the member is holding out as a CPA. The standards applicable to members performing consulting services are set forth in the Statements on Standards for Consulting Services (SSCSs) and specifically state that such standards apply to members holding out as a CPA while providing consulting services. Would a member who does not hold out as a CPA be in compliance with “Compliance with Standards Rule” if the member did not comply with the SSCSs while performing consulting services for a client? Yes or No

Please no written by hand and no emage Silky Coordinates", a women's clothing store, employs female attendants to assist customers in the dressing rooms. Radley, 41 year old male, applies for the job , but is not hired and is told that only woman qualify. If Radley brings a suit against "Silky" for employment discrimination under Title VII, what is the store's best defense? For the purposes of this question you may assume that Radley has information that makes it possible to prove he was not hired because he is a male. You may also assume that Radley is not transgendered, or gender fluid. Now consider that Radley is a transgender person, who identities as a female, and is in the process completing a physical change to a female. However, anatomically she is a male. Again, you may assume that Radley has information that makes it possible to prove she was not hired because she is transgendered. Does the store have a defense to a discrimination suit? To answer this question you will have…

Answer the following TRUE/FALSE questions:Redundancy is a form of dismissal The Data Protection Act 2018 applies to computer-based and electronically stored information systems onlyAn employee has a statutory right not to be unfairly dismissed under the Employment Rights Act 1996Common Law imposes a duty on an employer not to pass confidential information to a third party about his employeeA wrongful dismissal will occur by a breach of the employment contractUnder the Data Protection Act 2018, a claim for damages for distress can be made for data breachBiometric and genetic data, are covered under the GDPR 2016

CASE STUDY Instructions: Make a CASE STUDY FORMAT and answer questions provided Stipulation Against Marriage Irish Arellano, a flight attendant of ABC Airlines, was dismissed from her job by reason of her marriage. In dismissing her, the company invoked its policy which provides: Flight attendant applicants must be single and will be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married. Irish disputed her dismissal on account of her marriage, invoking Article 135 of the Labor Code. The company, on the other hand, also raised arguments that its flight attendants will get pregnant upon getting married and the marriage will make them inefficient or less efficient. To add, the company argued the policy has been enforced for many years and so far, no competent authority has declared it illegal or unjust. It also claimed that it has openly adopted and enforced this policy or regulation in good faith over the years believing it legally justifiable because of…