Share
Explore BrainMass

Court's Reasoning

I am trying to minimize a case analysis and it's not working - since I'm unable to minimize it due to the amount of information given. I have to discuss the

Summary of the Court's Reasoning on this case. This is the information I have for the Case Analysis - I can not complete this withought the Court's Reasoning. Unfortunatley I have already exceeded the limit on this analysis it should have been in this type of format.

Summarize the Facts, state the Issue, express the Court's Holding and give your Summary the Court's Reasoning. (The entire opinion of the court may also be found at www.lawcrawler.com.)

Below is an example of how minimized my summary should look but I'm unable to get it that small. In the attachment is the analysis I did that needs to be minimized. Can you assist with this?

United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979)

Facts: The Kaiser-USWA plan provides that 50% of new craft trainees are to be black until affirmative action goals are met. Weber, an otherwise qualified, white applicant, is rejected. He sues claiming racial preferences violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Weber wins in District Court and the Court of Appeals. Kaiser and the Steelworkers appeal.

Issue: Do private sector affirmative action plans violate Title VII?

Holding: Temporary, voluntary, private sector affirmative action plans designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories that do not unnecessarily trammel the interests of whites do not violate Title VII. Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Summary of the Court's Reasoning: The Kaiser-USWA plan opens employment opportunities traditionally closed to Negroes. The purpose of Title VII was to improve "the plight of the Negro in our economy." Congress could not have intended to prohibit properly limited affirmative action plans that achieve this purpose.

Attachments

Solution Preview

Reasoning
State assertions of personal jurisdiction over natural persons generally are limited to situations where the person is physically present in the state at the time service of process is made. The location of natural persons is easily verifiable. However, a corporation does not have a physical location in the same sense as a natural person since the corporate personality is a legal fiction. The location of a corporation hence is determined by its activities and dealings in a state.
Due process permits a state court to assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporate defendant provided that the defendant has "minimum contacts" with the state so that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." The term "minimum contacts" refers to the nature and quality of the defendant's activities in the state and the relationship ...

$2.19