The plaintiff MF brought a suit for a wrongful termination against the defendant PVI after she was terminated by the company for disclosure of its overtime pay policy to the U.S. Labor Department by her. The court gave a decision in favor of the plaintiff. After the completion of the trial, it came to the notice of the defendant’s attorney that one of the jurors made anti-semitic remarks against the witness who gave testimony on behalf of the defendant. The defendant’s attorney applied for a new trial but was unsuccessful and now they have appealed. To Explain : The comments made by the juror are sufficient to require a new trial.

Question

Laurie, a lesbian and French national, was hired as a flight attendant to work in United Airlines’ hub in Paris. Laurie was terminated at age 40. She sues United Airlines alleging employment discrimination on the basis of age, gender, and affinity orientation (the latter based on the Illinois Human Rights Act). The airline asks the court to dismiss Laurie’s action on the basis that she does not live in the U.S., so the employment protection laws do not apply to her. Will the court do so? Explain. [Rabé v. United Airlines, Inc. 2011 WL677946 (7th Cir. 2011).] What will the court do? Explain Utilize facts / law / precedent. Cite as appropriate 1 page should do.

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 5BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The plaintiff MF brought a suit for a wrongful termination against the defendant PVI after she was terminated by the company for disclosure of its overtime pay policy to the U.S. Labor Department by her. The court gave a decision in favor of the plaintiff. After the completion of the trial, it came to the notice of the defendant’s attorney that one of the jurors made anti-semitic remarks against the witness who gave testimony on behalf of the defendant. The defendant’s attorney applied for a new trial but was unsuccessful and now they have appealed.

To Explain: The comments made by the juror are sufficient to require a new trial.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Laurie, a lesbian and French national, was hired as a flight attendant to work in United Airlines’ hub in Paris. Laurie was terminated at age 40. She sues United Airlines alleging employment discrimination on the basis of age, gender, and affinity orientation (the latter based on the Illinois Human Rights Act). The airline asks the court to dismiss Laurie’s action on the basis that she does not live in the U.S., so the employment protection laws do not apply to her. Will the court do so? Explain. [Rabé v. United Airlines, Inc. 2011 WL677946 (7th Cir. 2011).] What will the court do? Explain Utilize facts / law / precedent. Cite as appropriate 1 page should do.

Lisa applied and interviewed for a manager position at her company and was not selected. She was not given any feedback from the interview, Tony her male coworker was selected for the position. Lisa felt the promotion was unfair, since she had more seniority than Tony, and decided to file a gender discrimination and play with her local equal opportunity commissioner the EEOC investigated the complaint, and did not find any evidence of discrimination. Both Lisa and Tony’s employment was in good standing however, Tony had passed managerial experience, which was listed as a requirement on the job. This aspect, then made him a strong, stronger candidate for the job than Lisa, who had more seniority, but lacked the experience and the next several months, Lisa noticed the change from her manager prior to the complaint being filled he was very personable towards her and often made small talk around the office. After the complaint he was very short with her, and did not engage in any small…

Sam, a mid-level manager at his company, continually makes offensive remarks and gestures toward Susan, a non-manager at the company who works in another department. Susan quits her job and brings a lawsuit for sexual harassment. As a general rule under California law, the company Group of answer choices a. is strictly liable to pay general damages for the sexually harassing acts of its managers. b. is not liable if Susan complained about the problem and the company took no corrective action. c. is liable for punitive damages even if senior management had not been made aware of the problem. d. none of the above.