Herawi v. the State of Alabama, Department of Forensic Sciences
Facts
Herawi was born in Iran, received her degree in medicine in Germany. In October 2001, she began as an employee of the Department of Forensic Sciences. Herawi started facing issues of discrimination when she visited her mother after the demise of her father. She was called in multiple times by the Ward for being non-serious towards the work. She then received the employee probationary performance appraisal which gave her a rating of 1.57 out of 4. While handing over the appraisal, the Ward mentioned her national origin. On other times, ward told Herawi that she was disliked by most of her co-workers because she could not speak English. On April 2002, Herawi submitted her resignation letter that confirmed her separation from employment (Herawi v. Department of Forensic Sciences, 2004)
Issue
Herawi filed a lawsuit because she claimed that (1) she was dismissed because of she is an Iranian; (2) she was terminated in revenge for the concerns she held against Ward; and (3) she was abused because of her ethnic origin. In the basis that his decision not to give her a permanent job was focused on fair, non-discriminatory grounds, the Forensic Department applied for summary judgement.
Explain the applicable law(s)
The applicable law, in this case, is Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. The law states that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual concerning his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin." This can be found on page 112 of the book. (Bennett-Alexander, 1995)
Holding
The court held that the summary judgment stands valid for this matter. The summary judgment is applicable when there is no "genuine issue" that relates to the facts.
Reasoning
The court held that Herawi did not hold any evidence that showed the remarks and behavior that was worthy of punishable level (Douglas, 2017). Although, the court agreed that the comments by Ward were discriminatory as he used her national origin several times as well as told her that no one likes her but there is not enough evidence to consider it as creating a hostile environment and take the matter to the jury.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the ruling by the court should have been in favor of Herawi. This is because a female cannot provide evidence for any sort of harassment that she faces at the workplace. The court did not find Herawi to be having sufficient evidence of remarks and comments that could escalate the case to the jury level. However, I believe that in such circumstances where the employee is subjected to discrimination, he or she cannot prove it with records. The letter of termination was the only proof of discrimination that Herawi had.
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
Facts
Patterson an African American woman worked for McLean a credit union. She was working as a teller at the union for 10 years before being let go (Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 1989).
Issue
Patterson was laid off after 10 years of serving as a teller. She then brought this suit in Federal Court charging that she had been threatened by the defendant who refused to appoint her to the accounting clerk, and then dismissed her, only because of her color.
Explain the applicable law(s)
The applicable law for this case is the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act clearly states that "All persons...shall have the same right...to make and enforce contracts...as is enjoyed by white citizens." This can be found on page 112 of the book. (Bennett-Alexander, 1995)
Holding
The case appeared in front of the Trial Court, it held that the petitioner must prove that she was a better-qualified applicant for the clerk position than the white employee. However, when the case was presented before the Supreme Court, it ruled out the ruling of Trial court. Furthermore, the claim of Patterson of racial harassment was not actionable as ruled by the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
Supreme court ruled that racial discrimination related to the conditions of employment of an employee are not legal under the Civil Rights amendment 1981. However, the 1981 law had restricted scope for the ruling related to discrimination in contracts. Thus, petitioner’s appeal stands not actionable.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the ruling of the court was correct. Firstly, the petitioner must have evidence that she applied for the vacant position of clerk and was disqualified on a discriminatory basis. Furthermore, the union had to promote within the strategy (Bennett-Alexander, 1995). The company must have notified all of its employees about the availability of the position so that they all must have applied. Thus, Patterson must have shown that she was a better candidate for the position.
Coats v. Dish Network
Facts
Coats has become a quadriplegic bound to a wheelchair when he was a child. He began working at Dish as a delegate for the mobile customer service in the year 2007. Coats received a state-issued medicinal marijuana license in the year 2009. He had told the organization that he was a patient with medicinal marijuana, and intended to consume it (Coats v. Dish Network, 2015).
Issue
Once a random drug check found Coats was using drugs, Dish Networks LLC terminated Brandon Coats on 7 June 2010 for breaching the company's narcotics policies.
Explain the applicable law(s)
The applicable law for this case is The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. The act states that the employees with disabilities must bear the same treatment from the employer as physically and mentally fit employees do.
Holding
The Supreme court ruled that it was not a "lawful activity" since Coats ' possession of medicinal marijuana remained unconstitutional under federal law.
Reasoning
The Colorado Supreme Court questioned if the application of medicinal marijuana banned by federal legislation was a "lawful activity" for constitutional purposes. The court noted that the concept of "permissible" was not limited exclusively to what was permissible under state legislation. The court instead ruled the possession of marijuana remained unambiguously prohibited under federal law, furthermore, there was no known loophole under the federal statute for medicinal marijuana.
Conclusion
The Colorado Supreme court decided against Mr. Coats, and the decision was possibly right, in my opinion. This viewpoint is not a common one in the world of marijuana activism but it is a fact. Mr. Coats ' usage of marijuana violated the rule. He was using a substance which is prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act since it is a drug as mentioned under schedule I.
References
Douglas, C. (2017). Herawi v. state of Alabama. Retrieved from www.casemine.com: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b745add7b0493477e19e
Herawi v. the State of Alabama, Department of Forensic Sciences 311 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Ala. 2004)
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union 491 U.S. 164 (1989)
Coats v. Dish Network, LLC 2015 CO 44, 350 P.3d 849 (2015)
Bennett-Alexander, D. Employment Law for Business. (1995). [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781260031805/