Case Briefing Vizcaino V. Us Dist. Court for Wd of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) Case Summary

Grant v Bragg & Anr [2009] EWCA Civ 1228; [2010] 1 AII ER (Comm) 1166, CA

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

Alves v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. 804 F3.d 1149 (11th Cir. 2015)

This lawsuit was from May 2016. Plaintiffs on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the LaMettry’s 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan brought a lawsuit to recover financial losses suffered by the Plan and obtain injunctive and other equitable relief for the Plan from LaMettry’s (Plan Sponsor) and their CFO, Steven P. Daniel and President Joanne LaMettry (collective trustees) based on breaching their fiduciary duties.

During this case processing, court has also considered past reference cases such as National Resourced Defense Council Inc. v. Gorsuch, 222 U.S. App. D.C. 268,685 F. 2d 718 (1982), Mortan v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231(1974), Unites States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374,382.383 (1961), Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 63/64 (1975) for final outcome of this case 002E (Council, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense

Summary of Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62L. Ed. 1101 (1918)

The Full Court also rejected AIG’s argument that the clause ‘permitted’ adverse action. In interpreting the term ‘permitted’ to mean ‘authorise’ the Full Court found the clause operated passively and therefore did not meet the threshold of ‘authorise’ which would require a positive operation of the clause .

David works in Johnson Industrial, which is a small auto parts manufacturer. This workforce is non-union. David has been employed as a production Operator for 20 years; his last drawn salary was $2500. However the company wants to lay off 15 production workers in order to face increased competition in automobile industry. David is very distressed about losing his job and he is dwelling on taking legal action against Johnson Industrial.

Just as the court’s found, I believe that the Committee's determination that the defendants were not eligible for benefits under the Plans was reasonable, and that they were independent contractors for subsidiaries of Time Warner, not entitled to benefits under Time Warner’s plans. They were not subject to the degree of control and direction exercised by the firm over the workers to determine otherwise. As the Judge points out, they were not misled here, and none of them could reasonably have expected to be eligible for benefits. They signed agreements acknowledging that they were not "employees" for any purpose. Under ERISA, employers have broad discretion to exclude categories of workers from receiving benefits, subject only to ERISA's prohibition

HARRIS, Jason. Relief from liability for company directors : recent developments and their implications. [online]. UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY LAW REVIEW; (12) 2008: 152-175. Availability: ISSN: 1446-9294. [cited 22 Aug 15].

Two court cases are examined for this paper that are somewhat similar. The first case was precedent setting and the second seemed to follow some of the same ground as the first. The two cases, Aetna v. Pendleton Detectives and Patterson v. TLW and Turtle Creek, are presented below.

An important part of complying with labor regulations is accurately identifying the relationship that exists between the company and its workers. In addition to broad federal laws that apply to most companies, businesses are subject to state laws, and sometimes additional laws specific to an industry at either the federal or state level. Classification of employees determines benefits, but also how company resources must be distributed (Hunt, 2015). As litigation involving groups of employees has become more common and the settlement amounts have increased exponentially (Calvasina, Calvasina, & Calvasina, 2010), the consequences of noncompliance, regardless of intent, can cripple businesses of any size. Determinations are not always straightforward and courts at different levels sometimes disagree as to the proper classification of a worker in a particular circumstance.

In U.S. v. Speedy Gonzalez for example, the OCAHO held that a participant in a business or cooperative is not an employee if he or she holds a substantial ownership interest and exerts control over all or part of a business. To determine whether a worker-shareholder is an owner the courts follow the Supreme Court’s Clackamas decision factors,

The culmination of a collective bargaining process is a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between employers and members of a labor union. In some instances, where firms hire contractors who are under a different supervision regime from the bonafide employees of an organization, it brings about complications in the formulation of collective bargaining agreements for the contractor and organizational staff under an umbrella labor union covering both staff. Since a collective bargaining agreement is a contractual agreement between employers and unionizable employees covering a wide range of areas pertinent to the employer-employee relationship, it is subject to laws that govern the labor practises at both state and federal government level and can therefore not contravene the law by allowing what is expressly forbidden under state or federal law (Carrell, & Heavrin, 2004).