Lewis vs. City of Chicago.
Issue: The issue in question concerns whether black firefighters in Chicago were discriminated against: Should the firefighters have filed a discrimination claim within 300 days of an announcement of Chicago's hiring policy or within 300 days of the execution of the policy? The policy concerns the city of Chicago's decision to hire only firefighters who came under the "well-qualified" category. Accordingly, there were three categories: not qualified, qualified, and well-qualified. Since the city could only hire 600 applicants, it chose only applicants from the "well-qualified" category for employment.
Rule: The rule that applies to the issue is Title VII Section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Application: This concerns how the court applied Title VII Section 703 (a) to the case. Using this benchmark, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the black firefighters violated the 300 day limitation clause in its discrimination claim.
Resolution: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the black firefighters. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated that, each time the city of Chicago hired from its "well-qualified" list, a new discriminatory act occurred that opened up a new 300 day window to file claims. So, effectively, the black firefighters did not violate the 300 day limitation clause in Title VII Section 703 (a).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-974
In my answer below, I will discuss the Novartis and New Haven cases. Hopefully, this will give you some idea of how to tackle the other three cases.
Velez v. Novartis
Issue: What is the legal question the court must decide? In this case, the court must decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been violated. Basically, has Novartis discriminated against the 19 female plaintiffs on the basis of gender, national origin, race, or religion?
Rule: This is the actual rule or principle of law that applies to the issue in question. In Velez vs. Novartis, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures decides whether the plaintiffs can sue in a class-action lawsuit. Basically, the class action lawsuit against Novartis must have met all four of the threshold requirements for class certification according to Rule 23 (a) and one of the three requirements for Rule 23 (b). It's a little complicated, and since you do not state what your instructor requires, I include a link to the court case that describes how the court applied Rule 23 (a) and (b) to certify its decision about the legality of the class action lawsuit.
Some instructors may expect students to actually list Rule 23 (a) and (b), and if this is the case for you, I suggest using my first link about Rule 23 above as a reference. Additionally, Title VII 42-usc-2000e also applies to the issue in question. Please check with your instructor to ensure that you include both if needed. Rule 23 decided whether the class action lawsuit could go forward, while Section 42-usc-2000e was the benchmark by which the court decided the plaintiff's case.
Application: This describes how the court applies the law to the case in question. Can the plaintiffs sue the defendant in a class-action lawsuit? Which party (plaintiff or defendant) will win based on the facts of the case (that Novartis discriminates against its female employees in the area of pay, promotions, and gender-specific conditions such as pregnancy)? For this, you will have to use this link to write the application. Scroll down for specific examples about discrimination by Novartis against its female employees on the basis of pay, promotions, and on account of pregnancy. You may also decide to use evidence discussed in the CBS article about Raelene Ryan's experience.
Conclusion: This is a short statement on the final outcome of the case. Here, you will be able to use the Washington Post article about Novartis' $152.5 million sex-bias settlement.
Ricci v. Destefano
Issue: What is the legal question the court must decide? In this case, the court must decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been violated. Are civil officials who are trying to diversify a firefighter department guilty of racial discrimination?
Rule: It looks like the rule in reference here is Title VII 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Basically, do these rules permit federal courts to let local officials ignore race-blind merit selection processes in their own departments?
Ricci vs. Destefano.
Court case of Ricci vs. DeStefano.
Application: Basically, this is how the court applied the rules to the case.
Conclusion: How the Supreme Court ruled in the case. This can be a short statement (based on evidence from the NY Times article) that the city of New Haven was found to have discriminated against white firefighters in its decision to discard the results of a promotional exam. This was a 5-4 ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment