Explore BrainMass
Share

Court Case Briefs

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

I need assistance writing four business briefs on the following court cases:

Business and the Bill of Rights
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-1321

Administrative Agency
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0370379p.pdf

Torts Relating to Business
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-179

Contracts
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-411

Title each of the sections with the:
Facts
Issue
Ruling
Analysis
Minority Rationale(s)
Comments

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 10:47 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/court-case-briefs-232995

Solution Preview

Gomez-Perez V. Potter, Postmaster General
Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals For
The First Circuit

Facts
Gomez-Perez was a 45 year old postal employee, who had filed a complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. She filed a petition alleging that her employer had violated 29 USC section 633 a (a) of the ADEA by retaliating against her for filing a complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to Potter, Postmaster General. When Gomez-Perez appealed to the First Circuit, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed.

Issue
Does Section 633a (a) prohibit retaliation against federal employee who complaints of age discrimination?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Section 633a (a) prohibits retaliation against federal employee who complaints of age discrimination.

Analysis
The reason why the Supreme Court decided in favor of Gomez-Perez was that there were prior decisions relating to retaliation that were covered by similar language in other antidiscrimination statutes. Under 42 USC Section 1983, all citizens shall have the same right as enjoyed by white citizens. In Jackson vs. Birmingham disallowed retaliation against public school employees. The court held that the language used in ADEA was similar to other discrimination statutes.

Minority Rationale(s)
The minority rationale is that the executive branch of the government has treated discrimination and retaliation separately and enacts administrative remedies for such retaliation, so to treat retaliation as discrimination is not acceptable. Similarly, a ban against discrimination based on protected status cannot be read to include a ban on retaliation.

Comments:
In an organization, if an administrative complaint is filed by an employee under the ADEA, there should not be any retaliatory action against her.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARION P. FRY, Dr., ü No. 03-70379 Petitioner,
v. ý DEA No. BC4410-09-m
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ...

Solution Summary

This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to Court Case Briefs

$2.19
Similar Posting

Case Brief

Please help me write a brief for the following cases:
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)
Rochin v California (1952
Wong Sun v United States (1973
Illinois v. Gates (1983)

See attached: How to write a brief.

View Full Posting Details