For Prof. Martin

SAMPLE ANSWER

Question One

The plaintiffs in the case are former or current Wal-Mart employees who represent the 1.5 million members of the certified class. Female members allege that the company had discriminated them by denying them equal rights on pay and promotion. This was in violation of Table VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court applied the basis of commonality to decide whether the company was guilty by granting local managers discretion over managing pay and promotion .It argued that these managers exercised this right in a largely subjective manner. Since the company did not have a policy that was against advancement of women in management, the commonality does not arise since all managers are different in how the make those decisions. (Calabresi & Schwartz 2011)

The case was thrown for lack of a policy guiding how local managers made decisions on pay and promotion since they use their own judgment and discretion. It also ruled that Wal-Mart was entitled to its individualized determination of back pay but also suggested the use of trial formula to calculate administration of back pay.

Question Two

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 says that parties of a class must demonstrate that the class is so many to enjoin each. There must also be questions of law and fact common to it, claims of their defenses are the same, and that the representative parties will fairly represent and protect the interest of the class. The court thus ruled that the class representative must be part of the class, possess same interest, and suffer the same injury as all the members of the class. For this reason, the court considered Rule 23 s four requirements, numerousity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation.

Question Three

Improper certification of back pay claims was one of the complications. Claims are not certified where monetary relief is not of any effect to the result of the case. Rule 23 applies only when a single injunction provides damages to each class m ember. The court ruled that Wal-Mart was entitled to determining claims of back pay individually. The method by the district court is rejected on grounds that it did not conduct proceedings to determine the amount of individual relief and then it proposed the use of Trial by formula instead.

Question Four

The plaintiffs in cases of class must be ready to provide proof that actions affect all members and the company must have put policies that guide how they treat workers. Should the case had gone through the employers would have to make new policies to guide local managers on how to handle pay and promotions to avoid class cases and expensive damages.

Case Study 2: Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School

Question One

The court considered whether Laurelbrook broke the law by failing to compensate students working in the sanitarium receiving vocational training skills. The court sought to know whether the students also acted as employees as well as who between the school and the students received primary benefit. Thus after considering all possible means and evidence, it found out that although there is a primary benefit to Laurelbrook, the primary beneficiary was the students for receiving hands on skills, work ethics and and leadership skills from its programs (Hart, M. 2014)

Question Two

The issue of the students being termed as employees was in question because FLSA rules do not consider students in vocational schools as employees, but students and thus they were not eligible to get a pay for services rendered while on training. Again, the Sanitariums’ operation usually could go on without interruption even when the students were not working.

Question Three

Laurelbrook proposed to test whether the students were employees since according to the FLSA, vocational school students are not employees. Secretary proposed the use of six-factor test created by WHD (Wage & Hour Division) to differentiate between employees and trainees. The court chose to use the primary benefit test because the other tests were not conclusive. They considered tangible as well as intangible benefits to both the school and the trainees (Isaac Haroff 2012)

Question Four

Since the students received skills that would help them in future like work ethics, practical and leadership skills, they primarily benefited than the school. Even when they could not work in the sanitarium, work went on without interruption and by being supervised by workers at the expense of the school hence; they could not replace the workers.

Question Five

This case cannot have any implications on interns at companies because they are not vocational schools in that they do not perform duties as part of school curriculum. The students in vocational schools receive other training not offered in corporations where interns do the work that the formal employees perform. The interns at companies may need allowances to facilitate learning practical skills because they also help the company to meet their goals (Tripp. M. 2015)

Reference

Calabresi, G., & Schwartz, K. S. (2011). The costs of class actions: allocation and collective redress in the US experience. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32(2), 169-183.

Getman, J., & Getman, D. (2014). Winning the FLSA Battle: How Corporations Use Arbitration Clauses To Avoid Judges, Juries, Plaintiffs, and Laws. St. John's Law Review, 86(2),

Hart, M. (2014). PAPERS FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS 2014 ANNUAL MEETING, SECTION OF THE LABOR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW: INTERNSHIPS AS INVISIBLE LABOR. Empl. Rts. & Employ. Pol'y J., 18, 141-141.

Issacharoff, S. (2012). Class Actions and State Authority. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 44, 12-33.

Tripp, M. (2015). In the Defense of Unpaid Internships: Proposing a Workable Test for Eliminating Illegal Internships. Drake L. Rev., 63, 341.