If a person with greater economic power makes a person of lesser wealth sign a

If a person with greater economic power makes a

  • Test Prep
  • kellmargs2
  • 43
  • 100% (2) 2 out of 2 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 25 - 27 out of 43 pages.

If a person with greater economic power makes a person of lesser wealth sign a contract threatening to do economic harm to him Undue Influence 1. Person was induced to enter into a particular contract by virtue of the dominant party’s power and influence, rather than as a result of exercising his or her own volition 2. The dominant party used this party to take advantage of him or her Ex. teen taking advantage of dying aunt Cases Redd v. NY State Div. of Parole {sexual harassment}
Image of page 25
P(a woman) appealed the dismissal of her complaint alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race and gender, retaliation and sexual harassment by defendant (her employer - also a woman) Said same-sex supervisor created hostile environment Did P allege sufficient pervasive acts (that create an abusive working environment) for a jury to consider? Same-sex harassment prohibited under Title VII Hostile environment harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive, both subjectively and objectively, to create an abusive working environment Supervisor's touching P's breasts 3x could be both severe and pervasive Question for the jury, ruled that it created a detriment to P EEOC v. Abercrombie {religious discrimination} In 2008, Elauf, then 17 years old, applied for a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Tulsa, Oklahoma . During her interview with the company, she was wearing a head scarf, but did not say why. The woman interviewing her, Heather Cooke, was initially impressed with Elauf, but also concerned about her head scarf. Cooke had told the manager of the store that she thought Elauf was wearing the scarf for religious reasons, but the manager responded that employees were not allowed to wear hats at work, and so declined to hire her. In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Elauf's behalf.This led to a lawsuit in a federal district court that resulted in Elauf receiving $20,000 in damages. However, this decision was later reversed by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals , which ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch on the basis that Elauf did not provide the company with information about her need for an accommodation . On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Elauf. In an opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia , the Court held that Elauf did not have to explicitly request an accommodation to obtain protection from Title VII , which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring. U.A.W. v. Johnson Controls {sexual discrimination}{safe work environment} a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that private sector policies which allow men but not women to knowingly work in potentially hazardous occupations is gender discrimination and violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. At the time the case was heard, it was considered one of the most important sex- discrimination cases since the passage of Title VII The majority opinion by Justice Blackmun
Image of page 26
Image of page 27

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 43 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes