2HRM593 Week 4 Course Project Marie v. American Red Cross (Connie Corral Aguilar)Chapter 1Facts:On November 5, 2009 Sister Michael Marie and Sister Mary Cabrini (Catholic nuns) brought a claim against the American Red Cross and the Ross County Emergency the board Agency (the RCEMA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity commission for infringement of both their privileges of free speech and free exercise of religion. Their administrations with these organizations were ended.Issue:The Sisters assert infringement of their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, just as their Fourteenth Amendment privileges of equal protection. Explain the applicable law(s):It is appropriate for the court to determine employment status as a matter of law. They stated cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000e et seq., and the Ohio Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. The Sisters likewise brought cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of their sacred privileges of, in addition to other things, free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection under the law.Holding:The district court, determined that the Sisters were not employees of the Red Cross or RCEMA. The district court found that the Sisters delivered no proof that RCEMA ended them due to their expressive lead or their truly held strict convictions. The Sisters have not fulfilled their weight on
3HRM593 Week 4 Course Project a fundamental component of their First Amendment reprisal asserts, the district court's rejection of those cases was justified.Reasoning:Sister Marie and Sister Cabrini didn't demonstrate themselves to be workers under the custom-based law office test, the locale court appropriately allowed synopsis judgment as to their cases under Title VII. Sister Michael Marie and Sister Mary Cabrini were catastrophe help volunteers for the American Red Cross and the Ross County Emergency Management Agency for an all-encompassing timeframe, yet havenot indicated that they got remuneration, acquired considerable advantages, or were commonly under the influence of either association through any of different occurrences of an office relationship. In this way, their volunteer relationship doesn't rough business and isn't secured by Title VII. Nor were the Sisters' protected rights abused. As needs be, the locale court's expulsion of the Sisters' cases were confirmed.Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. 100 Cal. Rptr. 2nd352 (Cal.2000) (2)Connie Corral AguilarFacts:Guz sued Bechtel, testing the June 1993 end of his Bechtel work. The grievance claimed reasons for activity for rupture of a suggested work contract, break of the pledge of good confidence and reasonable managing, and age discrimination infringing upon the California Fair Employmentand Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12941).