employment law notes 3

employment law notes 3 - Chan Park Employment Law Burdens...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chan Park Employment Law Burdens of Proof π-v-∆ -We seesaw and the plaintiff has to get more than 50% to win if the defendant is 50% - 50% the defendant wins. The plaintiff (π) he has to top the scale by at least 51% Criminal beyond reasonable doubt Civil preponderance of evidence Briefing a case π-v-∆ (S.C 1974) 1) Forum(court) 2) Parties to the case 3) Procedure of Case How 4) Facts of the case 5) Issue (legal issue being decided) 6) Holding of case (outcome conclusion) 7) Reasoning 8) Disposition of the case affirmed/Reversed/Remanded 9) Dissent: opinion that disagrees Remanded sends back to lower court. S.CT CT APP Employment-at-Will Duke University Mr. A shows that it was a policy of Duke University And for Woolley employee hand book was an implied contract (K) Constitutional claims 1) us constitution 2) State constitution -public sector - “State action” Duke University Arbitration usually a private case
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
1) Forum : Arbitration case 2) Parties : Employer (Duke) , Mr. A (employee) 3) Facts : Mr. A: Supervisor Ms. B employee - They have been dating when they were employee - Ms. B gets married - Ms. B complain about Mr. A’s actions - Duke 1 st investigates couldn’t tell if Mr. A continued w/ the advances: a strong letter of reprimand to Mr. A. - He gets suspended and 2 nd investigation starts - They show them a tape and Ms. B takes it back, - They also ask the employees that work at the lab about the actions - Some denied. - Mr. A is terminated after 2 nd investigation. 4) Procedure: (exception to employment at will) duke has a policy that people fired can get it reviewed. 5) Issue: whether the discharge of Mr. A with just causes, and if not what shall be the remedy? 6) Holding: no, remedy 1) reinstatement 2) No back pay 3) Suspension (time served) 4) Demotion 5) Require counseling 7) Reasoning: there was conflicting evidence, and it was not clear. The tape was not used at arbitration because they took the tape back. Woolley-V-Hoffman-LaRoche (NJ Supreme Ct 1985) 1) Parties : π(plaintiff) Woolley ∆(defendant) Hoffman LaRoche 2) Facts : - hired by company didn’t have a contract a.i.1.a. Had an employee handbook a.i.1.b. Got promoted etc. a.i.1.c.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/15/2012 for the course LAW 140 taught by Professor Cooney during the Fall '10 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 7

employment law notes 3 - Chan Park Employment Law Burdens...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online