Sample Case Study to follow:
Facts: Theodore Rosenblatt filed suit against the law firm that he worked for after they fired him. His suit claimed that he was discharged because he was married to an African American and that he was discriminated against. The firm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he was alleging discrimination against his wife, not himself, and did not have standing to sue under Title VII for racial discrimination.
Issue: Should the court grant or deny the motion?
Decision: The court should grant the motion in favor of the law firm.
Reason: Theodore was not considered part of any protective class, which would rule out the fact that he was fired because of his race. Furthermore, Theodore does not become a part of a protective class because he was married to an African American. If Theodore’s wife was working for the firm, and discharged in relation to her race, she could have the opportunity to sue her firm under Title VII for racial discrimination. If there was any possibility that the court would rule in favor of Theodore, he would have to prove that his discharge was in direct relation to the race of his spouse.
1. Facts: Freedom of Religion. Isaiah Brown was the director of the information services department for Polk County, Iowa. During department meetings in his office, he allowed occasional prayers and, in addressing one meeting, referred to Bible passages related to sloth and ‘work ethics.” There was no apparent disruption of the work routine, but the county administrator reprimanded Brown. Late, the administrator ordered Brown to remove from his office all items with a religious connotation. Brown sued the county, alleging that the reprimand and the order violated, among other things, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Could the county be held liable for violating Brown’s constitutional rights? Discuss. [Brown v. Polk County, Iowa]
Issue:???
Decision:???
Reason:???
DISCUSSION: (This is your analysis-include major and minor points/opposing points of view or counterpoints is a huge plus)
CONCLUSION: (Sometimes referred to as the Resolution-I should be able to know your conclusion by the way your framed your issue and by your sound discussion-go back to your issue- see if you answered it)
2. Facts: Free Speech. The city of Tacoma, Washington, Washington, enacted an ordinance that prohibited the playing of car sound systems at a volume that would be “audible” at a distance greater than fifty feet. Dwight Holland was arrested and convicted of violating the ordinance. The conviction was later dismissed, but Holland field a civil suit in a Washington state court against the city. He claimed in part that the ordinance violated his freedom of speech under the First Amendment. On what bias might the court conclude that this ordinance is constitutional? (Hint: In playing a sound system, was Holland actually expressing himself?) [Holland v. City of Tacoma]
Issue:???
Decision:???
Reason:???
DISCUSSION???-(This is your analysis-include major and minor points/opposing points of view or counterpoints is a huge plus)
CONCLUSION???-(Sometimes referred to as the Resolution-I should be able to know your conclusion by the way your framed your issue and by your sound discussion-go back to your issue- see if you answered it)