2 cases

two_case_briefs.docx

DO EXACTLY SAME FORMAT FOR BOTH CASE ANALYSIS JUST CHANGE THE WORDING. FOR THE RULE PART: COPY PASTE IT AS IT IS.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Co. vs. White

Facts About Case:

Shiela White was the only woman working in a certain department at Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company’s Tennessee Yard. White complained that her supervisor, Bill Joiner, was telling her that women should not be working that certain department. Joiner was disciplined and White was reassigned to “track laborer” tasks, a step down from her previous position in the department as a forklift operator. White filed a first complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). White then filed a second complaint to the EEOC when her new supervisor, Percy Sharkey, suspended her without pay claiming insubordination by White. The case was investigated and she was reapplied into her position and given her missed salary. She then filed a Title VII action against Burlington claiming that their actions amounted to unlawful retaliation and therefore were in violation of Title VII. The jury found in her favor and the appeal court also affirmed the decision of the District Court in White’s favor of both retaliation claims. Burlington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue:

Were Burlington’s actions reasonable or in violation of Title VII? Or would a reasonable employee find Burlington’s actions materially adverse and therefore file a claim of discrimination?

Rule:

“The anti-retaliation provision seeks to secure that primary objective by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act’s basic guarantees”… “The anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent harm to individuals based on what they do, i.e. their conduct”… “An employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking action not directly related to his employment of by causing him harm outside the workplace”.

Application:

Burlington had to show that a reasonable employee would have found the action actually harmful in their development by showing how it would have dissuaded them from making a charge of discrimination. Her demotion from forklift operator to track laborer was substantial since the track labor duties are more arduous and dirtier. Since White’s forklift operator position was prestigious and required more qualifications, the male employee’s resented her and retaliated. The court reasonably concluded that her reassignment would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee.

Conclusion:

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins

Background Facts: Ever since the 22nd amendment which stopped Prohibition, most states adopted a three tier system. In this system, the producers sold to wholesalers, and the wholesalers sold to the consumer. Then wineries made it so they can sell directly to the consumer. Then the Massachusetts state legislature said that all wineries that are located outside Massachusetts can apply for a “large” winery license, which means they can choose between the three tier system or selling to the consumer directly. They cannot do both.

Issues:  There seems to be some issues with this case because it goes against the commerce clause which says that there is no discrimination under the commerce clause, and that there is no difference between in state and out of state. Therefore, giving the small wineries in MA an unfair advantage, and a large comparative advantage for large wineries.

Rule of Law: The commerce clause Courts Application of the Law- Since this law was supposed to protect something like this from happening, it shows that MA was invilation and was trying to better off the small wineries in MA. Whereas most of the wine in America is out-of state and they produce 98% of the wine. By making it so that small wineries can sell to the three-tier system and sell directly to the consumer is discriminatory.

Decision: Do to obvious and unfair advantage of the small wineries in MA who produce less than 30,000 gallons of wine showed that the 2006 law created by the MA legislature altered the competitive balance to favor MA wineries and disfavor out of state wineries. Therefore, Chief Judge Lynch affirmed the decision of the other courts. 

Opinion: By looking at what the MA government had done to the out-of-state wineries like the ones in CA shows that they were being unfair. Under the commerce clause, the state had no right to have an unfair advantage over the other states who produce 98% of the wine.