Lesson - Week Five - Lecture
Contracts and Employment
There would be no way to cover everything you might want to know about contracts in this format. There are a few concepts, such as implied (someone undertakes an obligation via performance or other manner short of expressly) and express (parties agree either orally or in writing) contracts that you need to understand. Cornell covers this in a clear fashion along with other tabs for specifics at http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract . Some contracts must be in writing to be enforceable, falling under the Statute of Frauds. There are other aspects such as the basic elements and remedies of contracts covered in your text. We will focus more for our purposes though, on public contracting requirements.
Federal contracts are governed by the Federal Procurement Policy Act which gives the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (in the Office of Management and Budget) the authority over federal contracting policies and practices.
The nature of employment is constantly changing. Contractual, statutory, and policy restrictions have been added to the general "at will" employment scenario. Many, many times the implications of these are clarified through the judiciary. The best place to start is with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual due to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin along with other considerations. Other authorities in this area include the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) which prohibits certain employers from discriminating against those 40 or older and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which prohibits certain employers from discriminating against those with disabilities but that can still do the job.
In 1978 the Civil Service Reform Act created three offices: the US Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Promotion Board, and the Office of Special Counsel. The text outlines other regulations that affect wage and hour restrictions, taxes, benefits and worker's compensation. The text also notes that the courts have ruled that sexual harassment is considered sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Courts have found two categories: Quid Pro Quo harassment and hostile work environment.
It will help you better understand the legal aspects of policy if you learn to "brief" a case. There is a simple, clear way to do this. Please read the guidelines published by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html .Your case briefs for class should be in the format shown under the student brief section. Please use the headings and formats provided in your submission.
The case you are to brief is a Harassment case Vance v Ball State University, 570 US ____ (2013). You can find the oral arguments and complete opinion at
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-556. You can also see advanced commentary at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-556.
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE SUMMARIES GIVEN BACK TO ME! I want to see your work. For this assignment you are to do two things, first, brief the case - after you have read the entire opinion! Use the format provided. (Its attached as supporting materials for the brief case)
Next, listen to the oral argument and write a one page, single-spaced (500 WORDS OR MORE), opinion paper as you did in the previous assignment. I want your impressions, not what they said but what did you think of the proceedings, how did the attorneys do? Could you tell the outcome by the questions the justices asked? Did one dominate?
To better understand how I will grade these briefs, please see the grading rubric for case briefs in the resources section of the class. (It's Attached as supporting materials)
REMEMBER THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS ASSIGNMENT!
PS: YOUR ANSWER should be analytic in nature and include examples that can bolster your argument. YOUR ANSWER should be free of any spelling or grammar errors and properly cited in APA Style. At least 5 references.
500 words or more in total and must include scholarly references other than the textbook, preferably from Academic journals that can be found in any online library under EBSCO or JSTOR as appropriate.
1. Title and Citation
Vance V Ball State
Supreme Court Case Docket: 11-556
Citation: 270 US_(2013)
Argued Nov. 26, 2012, Opinion Jun 24, 2013
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
5-4 Affirmed lower court ruling
2. Facts of the Case
This case settles a question about the role of supervisor and its definition when used in cases submitted under the Title VII act that is to prevent discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.
Maetta Vance went to work for Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana in 1989. She was hired as a part time server who worked her way to a position in the catering section, rising to full time catering assistant after eighteen years. Before 2001, Vance and a co-worker, Saundra Davis got into an argument that resulted in Davis slapping Vance. Vance filed a complaint. In subsequent years, Davis and Vance had other incidents that Vance also filed formal complaints. In each case, Ball State and the supervisor, Bill Kimes, investigated and took appropriate disciplinary action including reprimands, verbal and written, separating the two employees and counseling. Another co-worker also created tension for Vance, Connie McVicker. The university also disciplined her according to policies.
Vance filed petition against Ball State and named Davis as a supervisor under Title VII, in the U.S. District Court in Southern Indiana in 2006. The district court responded to the request of Ball State by granting a summary judgement. This court found Ball State was not liable because Davis was not Vance's supervisor as required by Title VII. The case moved to the Seventh Circuit Court where the ruling was affirmed. To the district court's finding that Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote or otherwise control Vance's workplace position, the Seventh Circuit Court decided that while Davis and McVickers did create a hostile work environment for Vance, the university was not at fault because they had investigated the claims and took action for the situations.
A good student brief will include a summary of the pertinent facts and legal points raised in the case. It will show the nature of the litigation, who sued whom, based on what occurrences, and what happened in the lower court/s.
The facts are often conveniently summarized at the ...
A brief about the case Vance v Ball State.