See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bertrand, 37 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2000, pet. denied) ("Refusing an employee's request for a lateral transfer does not qualify as an adverse or ultimate employment decision like hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting or compensating."); Padilla v. Flying J, Inc., 119 S.W.3d 911, 915-16 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (holding that a transfer was not a tangible employment action because the transfer did not result in a change in pay and the employee did not suffer any economic harm); Griffin v. Sea Mar Mgt., Inc., 243 F. App'x 852, 854 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that plaintiff did not present a prima facie case of intentional racial discrimination because refusal to promote appellant did not constitute an adverse employment action); Maestas v. Apple, Inc., 546 F. App'x 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2013) ("[P]urely lateral transfers do not constitute adverse employment actions.") (citing Burger v. Central Apt. Mgmt., Inc., 168 F.3d 875, 879 (5th Cir. 1999)). Blow v. City of San Antonio, 236 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that in a failure to promote claim a plaintiff must show …show more content…
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000). Although Kincade may argue that the two anonymous notes constitute direct evidence of discrimination and that, therefore, the traditional burden-shifting analysis does not apply, he would be wrong because the evidence would require an inference or presumption that the notes were left either by management or a non-management employee in a position to influence the management member who decided not to grant the transfer. See KIPP, Inc. v. Whitehead, 446 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied); see also Elgaghil v. Tarrant Cnty. Junior College, 45 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Tex. App. Fort — Worth 2000, pet. denied) ("Stray remarks made in the workplace by non-decision makers, without more, are not evidence of the employer's intent to
Belton, R. (2004). Employment discrimination law: cases and materials on equality in the workplace. Thomson/West
I spoke to the store manager, and according to the manager, this employee opened/ created a lawsuit against the Walgreens. According to the manager, there was an agreement for settlement between the employee and employee relationship lawyer. Once the settlement passed it was agreed that they employee would leave the company.
Around November 2008, Dillard’s engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Cary, North Carolina location in violation of the Age Discrimination of Employment Act when it terminated Virginia Keene, a 61 year old woman, from her position ("Dillard 's sued by EEOC for age discrimination", 2010). She was an Area Sales Manager and was in charge of the Children’s and Accessories Departments and oversaw the sales associates who worked in her two departments. While she worked at Dillard’s, her managers repeatedly made verbal remarks to the fact that she was much older than the other five Area
In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis. Under Turners proposed accommodation, each inspector could continue to rotate on the hourly basis, with Turners, herself, rotating only between line 8 and 9. Hershey has not put up with that because this is not practical or
It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,
Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)
Up until this day, people with mental disorders are misunderstood which often leads them to being mishandled in the United States. So when the Perry v. Louisiana case was brought to the Supreme Court, it was clear, the decision would have lasting effects. Though many may find it easy to use people’s mental disorders as excuses to punish them, it is wrong in fact, as they are unaware of the harm being caused to others or themselves.
We were able to locate and review the lawsuit Robert Coleman v CDCR, et al. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was moved from a bunk bed cell to a side by side cell, which he claims seriously affected his mental health disorder (schizophrenia). The inmate states that when he informed the C/O that he could not stay in the side by side cell the C/O retaliated against him by placing the inmate in a small cage that he had to stand in for approximately seven hours. According to the inmate, his medical disability prohibits him from standing for long periods of time and subsequently experienced right knee pain and swelling. The inmate also indicates that his placement in a modified program violated his rights against lack of yard time
While listening to the Oral Argument of the 44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island Supreme Court case, I immediately found attorney Evan T. Lawson argument for the liquor stores more persuasive. Attorney Lawson started off his argument extremely strong, backing up his argument that the state has the ability to ban many things but not pertaining to speech.
A jury in a Chicago court awarded basketball legend, Michael Jordan, $8.9 million after he sued a grocery chain for using his identity to advertise their product without consent.
In the case of Sherbert against Verner et al., members of South Carolina Employment Security Commission, et al. (1963), Sherbert’s employer denied her unemployment benefits because
The 2 firms had a similar profit margin, major difference exists in COGS and SG&A, while Sears had a higher gross profit margin, high expense (21.17%) is driving the total cost and expense of the two firms to the same level-about 95%.
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (1992) was a court case which revolved around whether the software altering a copyright protected game contributes to copyright infringement from the fair use and creation of derivative work perspectives. Nintendo of America, Inc. (later in this paper referred to as Nintendo) primarily markets and sells home video games hardware systems along with compatible video game cartridges. On the other hand, Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. (later in this paper referred to as Galoob) is a US based company which sells and markets toy products and is best known for distributing Game Genie in the United States of America. Nintendo sued Galoob on the grounds of copyright infringement and the creation
Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle, Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion, titled "Pepsi Stuff," attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign, PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the Pepsi Generation,' in order to gain the largest possible response to help push their campaign. One such commercial shows a well dressed teenager preparing for school simultaneously advertising a t-shirt, leather jacket and sunglasses for various reasonable point values. As the scene
The answer will be 1 .34 . this is a good sign that the company will be able to pay its obligations when they fall due . Based on both current ratios above , Sears company has a better current ratio at 1 .94 when compared with the current ratio of Walmart of only 1 .34 .B Sears Acid Test ratio Quick Assets 20201 1 .279354 Current Liabilities 15790 The quick assets are arrived at by adding the cash , cash equivalents ,receivables and marketable securities . The quick ratio is arrived at dividing the quick assets for the year 2007 of 20 ,201 . The quick ratio is 1 .28 times .Walmart Acid Test ratio Quick Assets 2423 0 .167566 Current Liabilities 14460 The quick ratio here is arrived at by dividing the quick assets of 2 ,423 for the year 2007 by the current liabilities amounting to 14 ,460 for the same year . The acid test ratio or quick ratio is .17 Based on the above data , Sears has a better quick ratio with its higher rate of 1 .28 as compared to the quick ratio or acid test ratio of Walmart at only .17 .C SOLVENCY LEVERAGE RATIOS Ability to pay long term obligations Sears 38700 The ratio of .85 . This shows that the company will be able to pay its obligations when the time of payment arrives .Walmart 45384 The Walmart will be able to pay its obligations when they