I need assistance writing four business briefs on the following court cases:
Business and the Bill of Rights
Torts Relating to Business
Title each of the sections with the:
Gomez-Perez V. Potter, Postmaster General
Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals For
The First Circuit
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, ...
This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to Court Case Briefs