week 3 assignmsnt

Anonymous
timer Asked: May 18th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $25

Question Description

Case

Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003)]

Read the assigned case. Before you read the court’s decision determine how you would find if you were the judge. Write a discussion post based on your decision. After your post, go back in the case. Were you correct? Did the court find the way you thought they would find? Did they do so for the same reasons? Post a reflective post on your analysis of the case versus the court’s analysis.

You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each.

2. Case Brief Guidelines:

  • Students will brief all assigned cases for the module in which they are assigned. The case briefs are to be the student’s own work. The learning process takes place with the student reading, analyzing, and summarizing the facts and issues in a case; copying someone else’s work is not part of the learning process. However, students may consult with each other, discuss cases, and use the product of those discussions to write their briefs.
  • Your classmates will depend on you to write a thorough, accurate brief of the case(s) assigned. You, in turn, will rely on your classmates to do the same for their cases.
  • A copy of your brief will be posted in this module’s Case Brief Discussion board.
  • Be prepared to explain, justify, or dissent from your assigned case, as the instructor and/or classmates may query you about the case.

3. Case Brief Discussion

In the Case Briefs Discussion area, give your constructive feedback on the submissions that have been posted by your classmates. Your remarks can be opinion, but must be based on your experience, research, and/or prior learning. Use this area to gain valuable insight on how your fellow colleagues approached the Case Briefs and how your professor gave feedback and suggestions. Apply this information going forward to strengthen your own work. Apply this information going forward to enrich your understanding of the material, improve your ability to apply that knowledge to new content, and to strengthen your own work.

You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Case Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003)] 1. Active Learning Discussion Read the assigned case. Before you read the court’s decision determine how you would find if you were the judge. Write a discussion post based on your decision. After your post, go back in the case. Were you correct? Did the court find the way you thought they would find? Did they do so for the same reasons? Post a reflective post on your analysis of the case versus the court’s analysis. You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each. posts Rachel Richards posted May 9, 2019 11:26 PM Subscribe Ross v. Clayton County, 173 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) In the case of Ross v. Clayton County, Officer Gary Ross presents an appeal claiming violation of his civil rights under the First Amendment. Ross was demoted after it was revealed that he was sharing a residence with his brother, who happened to be a felon. After reading the initial information provided in this case, it appeared as if the ruling could legally go either way. However further analysis showed a clear verdict. Due to his lack of permanent position as a probationary employee, he wasn’t owed the privilege of an appeal to begin with. That in and of itself speaks to the legality of where the verdict could (and most likely would) lean. Also due to his employment status, it was deemed he did not have property interest to support his claim to appeal for rights violation. In addition, the circumstances surrounding how this information regarding his living situation with his brother came to light sullied his argument. First off, it was clearly noted that with proper notice and approval, he could have been granted the living situation with a known felon due to the familial tie. Secondly, not only did he not report and/or seek approval of the arrangement, but his brother was accused of kidnapping and sexual assault within their shared residence. This in combination with the reports that Ross was “confrontational and belligerent in his interactions” with the officers who arrived on scene (Ross v. Clayton County, 173 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) was evidence that his association with said felon was indeed a threat to the reputation of his department. For these reasons, I do not think his appeal stands on any solid ground and therefore should not be granted. Nickolas Parker posted May 13, 2019 11:45 AM Subscribe Andrew (Jack) Jackson Terry was a former Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service who had over 15 years of experience and was a well-known Special Agent. In October 1992, the INS published Vacancy Announcement 92–59 for the position of supervisory criminal investigator Terry applied for the promotion and believed that with his experience and good history that he would qualify for the job and eventually receive the promotion. Lesley Smail of the Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) was the personnel staffing specialist who reviewed all applications and created a “Best Qualified List” which indicated the candidates who best fit the position. After Terry learned that the position was given to someone who did not have as much experience as him and his work background wasn’t as strong Terry decided to file a complaint with the EEO alleging that race and age based discrimination were behind the decision not to promote him. Terry claimed that he was wrongfully excluded from the “Best Qualified List” due to his race and age being that a younger black male received the position without having as much experience. The same issue happened again in 1993 when Terry applied or vacancy 93-01 which was the supervisory criminal investigator position in which two women and one white male were selected over him even though his name did appear on the “Best Qualified List”. Over the next few years things for Terry didn’t get any easier; in 1994 he was hospitalized for chest pain and diagnosed with mitral valve prolapse which is basically an irregular heartbeat in which he filed a claim for workers compensation. Shortly after recovering Terry attended the “Police Olympics” where he won 5 gold medals which lead to him having to complete a “fitness for duty” exam so that he could return back to work. After passing the exam and returning back to work Terry received a new assignment and then began having issues with several employees in which Terry was advised by one of his Co-workers that he didn’t receive a promotion because he’s getting older and the department wants to have some younger people who can be here for years to come. As the judge in this case and looking at all the different series of events and things that took place during the times Terry filed each complaint. I would have to say that Terry’s Title VII of the Civil Right Act has been violated based solely on the fact that it was stated that the “Best Qualified List” did not include race or age however, it was later found that Terry’s application included his race which was written at the top. Also the reasoning behind my decision is that the African American male received the promotion solely based on a recent performance that received praised from the hiring supervisor. Lastly my reasoning for saying his rights were violated were not only the remarks made from someone stating that “he’s too old” and “the department wants younger people” but the simple fact that each time he applied for a position his age would interfere with him being promoted when the department promoted others that were either the same age or older than him. It seemed as if the people in the department didn’t like Terry and would do anything for him not to promote. Crystal Stubbs posted May 14, 2019 6:39 AM Subscribe Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000) In April of 1993, Holiday submitted an application to the City of employment as a police officer. He was required to pass a written and physical test in which he passed both in September of 1993. The physical test consisted of various tests of physical strength and endurance including running, jumping hurdles, and obstacle course and carrying heavy weights. Once this was completed, the City’s Police Department contacted Holiday for an interview in October of 1994. When the interview was done, he was offered employment as long as he passed the physical test administered by a licensed physician. The city has a contract with outside health care providers, including the Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga to perform the post-offer physical examination required. The city does not normally test employment applicants for HIV or AIDS; nor does it have a policy requiring that all persons who apply for a position as a police officer must test negative for HIV. Dr. Dowlen examined Holiday on October 21, 1994 and at that time Holiday informed the doctor that he was infected with HIV. According to Dr. Dowlen at the end of the interview; he informed Holiday that he had passed the examination. Dr. Dowlen’s office contacted Donna Kelley the City’s Personnel Director and informed her that Mr. Holiday had failed his examination. Kelley obtained Mr. Holiday’s examination. Dr. Dowlen concluded based on the examination that Mr. Holiday was unable to perform his duties of a police officer because he was not strong enough to withstand the rigors of police work due to his health conditions. After speaking with Dr. Dowlen, Kelly discussed Holiday’s medical issues with Dinsmore, Administrator of the City’s Department of Safety. He ultimately made the decision not to hire Holiday based on Dr. Dowlen’s medical report. The City claimed that Holiday’s HIV status presents a health concern/safety threat to others, based on the possibility of blood-to-blood contact during work. On June 19, 1997, Holiday filed suit in district court alleging that the City had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to hire him due to his HIV-positive status. The ADA refers to a qualified individual with a disability as an individual with a disability who with or without reasonable accommodation can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. If I was the judge over this case, I would rule in favor for Mr. Holiday. Having a good understanding of ADA, I would consider HIV as a disability. In his medical examination, Dr. Dowlen did nothing to assess if Holiday was physically fit or not. He only judged that based on the simple fact that he disclosed that he was HIV positive. The city did not have a policy established that all applicants have to test negative for HIV. In fact he was offered the position base on his previous test that resulted that he was physically fit. I think he lost the job based on Dr. Dowlen’s report. Reference Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 (United States Court of Appeals August 13, 1999) Case Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003)] 2. Case Brief Guidelines: • • • • Students will brief all assigned cases for the module in which they are assigned. The case briefs are to be the student’s own work. The learning process takes place with the student reading, analyzing, and summarizing the facts and issues in a case; copying someone else’s work is not part of the learning process. However, students may consult with each other, discuss cases, and use the product of those discussions to write their briefs. Your classmates will depend on you to write a thorough, accurate brief of the case(s) assigned. You, in turn, will rely on your classmates to do the same for their cases. A copy of your brief will be posted in this module’s Case Brief Discussion board. Be prepared to explain, justify, or dissent from your assigned case, as the instructor and/or classmates may query you about the case. 3. Case Brief Discussion In the Case Briefs Discussion area, give your constructive feedback on the submissions that have been posted by your classmates. Your remarks can be opinion, but must be based on your experience, research, and/or prior learning. Use this area to gain valuable insight on how your fellow colleagues approached the Case Briefs and how your professor gave feedback and suggestions. Apply this information going forward to strengthen your own work. Apply this information going forward to enrich your understanding of the material, improve your ability to apply that knowledge to new content, and to strengthen your own work. You must read at least three other students’ reviews and comment no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT. Your replies must be no less than 100 words each. posts Theresa Lehman posted May 15, 2019 5:23 PM Subscribe Assignment sub-heading: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Racial Discrimination TITLE AND CITATION: Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003) TYPE OF ACTION: Review by United States Court of Appeals to determine the immunity of Chief Alfred in his individual capacity when Plaintiffs claim Title VII violation of equal protection from race and gender discrimination. FACTS OF THE CASE: In 1995, Chief Alfred was appointed the Chief of the Jacksonville Fire Department and tasked with reducing the amount of racism claims amongst the department. Chief Alfred was approached by a subordinate in 1999 about creating four permeant captain positions for the four firefighters who were up for promotion. These four men would be required to retake the test that qualifies them for promotion again in nine days because the results from these tests expire every two years. After being approached about creating these four positions, Chief Alfred decided not to create the positions even though these men had impressive credentials. His reasoning was because he has just promoted eight white men and did not want to create four new permanent positions for an additional four white men and be blamed for excluding other races in promotions. Chief Alfred decided to hold off creating new positions until the new test results are released to see if other race options become available for promotion. The four men decided to bring a Title VII against Chief Alfred in both a personal and official aspect claiming discrimination. The four men claimed he refused to promote them because of their race and gender which was unlawful. The Chief is claiming immunity from these charges because of his position as a government official and his lack of knowledge in committing unlawful discrimination. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: Consolidated city of Jacksonville: The consolidated city of Jacksonville (Chief Alfred) contends that Chief Alfred did not knowingly violate the equal protections clause by refusing to create new positions and claims immunity in an individual capacity. Williams: The four plaintiffs (Williams) contends that their Title VII Equal Protections from Discrimination were violated because Chief Alfred based his decision not to create new positions for these four men based on their race and gender. ISSUE: Does the defendant receive qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of his actions was clearly established? DECISION: Yes, because at the time of this incident, there was no case law that could prove that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful. REASONING: The court applied the reasoning of clearly established law. The defendant acted with his discretionary powers to not create positions for these four plaintiffs to fulfill his assigned duties to control the look of racism amongst the department. The general equal protection right to be free of employment discrimination did not provide the defendant with fair and clear notice that these actions were unlawful. RULE OF LAW: Clearly established law requires the specifics of a law to give fair and clear notice that a person’s actions are unlawful. In 1999, the Equal Protection Clause was not specific and therefore did not provide clear and fair understanding that the actions in this case were unlawful. This is known as the “clearly established law” rule. Karri Greene posted May 16, 2019 2:48 PM Subscribe Assignment sub-heading: Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) TITLE AND CITATION: Phelan v. City of Chicago, 347 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2003) TYPE OF ACTION: James Phelan appeals to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, regarding the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissing the Due Process and FMLA counts and, granting the City of Chicago’s motion for summary judgment on Title VII count. FACTS OF THE CASE: James Phelan was employed in two separate positions by the City of Chicago. In 1992 he was hired by the City as a police officer. In October 1993 the Chicago Police Department granted him a leave of absence. In November 1995, while he was on leave from the Police Department, Phelan was hired by the City's Department of Streets and Sanitation to work as ward superintendent for the 23rd Ward. Phelan worked full time as ward superintendent until July 1997 at which time he took leave because of personal health problems. Phelan exhausted all of his sick days but was still unable to return to work. In September 1997, he applied for and was granted leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). In September 1997 Phelan was indicted for mail fraud. Shortly after his indictment, City personnel requested that he resign. When he refused to resign, the City fired him. Phelan's discharge was processed the same day that he officially returned from his FMLA leave. On October 27, 1997, Phelan requested that the City reinstate him to his position as a probationary police officer. The City notified Phelan that he no longer had employment with the Police Department. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: PHELAN: Plaintiff, James Phelan claimed that the City 1) violated the Due Process Clause, 2) breached the Family and Medical Leave Act, and 3) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. CITY OF CHICAGO: Defendant contends, (1) employee's positions were career service exempt and not afforded procedural protections from dismissal under Municipal Code of Chicago, and there was no clearly implied promise of continued employment; (2) employee's termination was motivated by his poor performance and did not violate FMLA simply because it occurred while he was on FMLA leave; and (3) employee failed to establish prima facie case of reverse race discrimination by demonstrating background circumstances supporting inference that city was unusual employer inclined to discriminate against majority, and neither of employee's alternate theories provided “fishy” circumstances raising inference of racial discrimination. ISSUE: The first claim presented by Phelan's appeal is that the City's termination of his employment violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights when the departments terminated him from his positions as ward superintendent and police officer without notice or a hearing. Phelan's second claim is that his dismissal violates the FMLA. Finally, Phelan, a Caucasian man, argues that his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the City of Chicago mistreated him due to his race. DECISION: The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit AFFIRMS the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissing the Due Process and FMLA counts and, granting the City of Chicago’s motion for summary judgment on Title VII count. REASONING: The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....” U.S. CONST. Amend. XIV, § 1. To assert a violation of the Due Process Clause, a plaintiff must be able to show that 1) he or she had a “property interest” and 2) that he or she was deprived of this interest without due process of law. The court notes that, although pleading standards are relaxed, a plaintiff must still plead sufficient facts to allow the district court to understand the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint. Even under the relaxed standards, Phelan did not meet the minimum requirements. Based on the pleadings, it is clear that Phelan cannot show any facts to prove that his Due Process rights were violated. Phelan elected to take leave under the FMLA for some time from September 12, 1997, to October 16, 1997. When he returned to work in October, he was terminated. The City states that before Phelan's absence, the quality of his work had been reduced, and during his absence, the employee hired to fill in for Phelan was more satisfactory. For these reasons, the City chose to terminate Phelan. A plaintiff must show “background circumstances” that demonstrate that a particular employer has “reason or inclination to discriminate invidiously against whites” or evidence that “there is something ‘fishy’ about the facts at hand.” Phelan failed to show proof that any of this had happened. RULE OF LAW: With no absolute right to reinstatement, whether an employer violates the FMLA turns on why the employee was not reinstated. An employee may not be fired because he or she took leave—that would be in direct violation of the statute. However, an employee may be fired for poor performance when he or she would have been fired for such performance even absent his or her leave. posts Timothy Robinson posted May 16, 2019 7:43 PM Subscribe Timothy G. Robinson Jr CRJ 550 Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration Case Brief #3 Assignment Sub-heading: The Fair Labors Standards Act TITLE AND CITATION: Houston Police Officers Union v. Houston, 330 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2003) TYPE OF ACTION: Appeal heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circut in which the appellant (Police Officers Union) a police officer is suing the c ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Nelnomap
School: Duke University

Attached.

Running head: CASE BRIEF

1

Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003)]
Name
Institutional affiliation

CASE BRIEF

2

TITLE AND CITATION
Williams v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003)]
TYPE OF ACTION
The case was reviewed by the court of appeal regarding the motion of Chief Alfred’s qualified
immunity by virtue of employment as head of the fire department
CASE FACTS
Chief Alfred an African American man was appointed to the position of chief director of the fire
department in Jacksonville Florida by the mayor in 1995. The choice was partially made to curb
racial discrimination cases that were reported before in the department. His position allowed
Alfred to create positions in the department that were deemed necessary. He also had the
responsibility to fill vacancies that arose in the department. When promoting in some ranks such
as lieutenant and captain, the chief relied on an eligibility list that was generated from a merit test
that interested candidates took. The scores in the test determined which candidate got the post or
promotion. The competitive written examination scores were valid for two ye...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors