Case Study Complaints
Theresa Seaman
LTC/328
June 23, 2014
Marc Schnitzer

Case Study Complaints
Case Study 1
The police department of Mason, IL consists of 90 full-time officers varying in ages, from 21 to 59. The tenure of the officers also varies with some being newly hired and others with 10 or more years of service to the force. The city just instituted a pay-for-performance plan that states that police officers who have better performance will receive increased compensation after biyearly performance appraisals. A police officer’s job requires strong physical ability in most situations and the performance appraisal includes assessment of physical ability to perform the job.

Within this case, as it concerns discrimination about the city’s denial of benefits or compensation about the police officer who were stronger than most. Since the police officer’s physical fitness would encompass the level of skills, competence, expertise within these certain areas of combat, so with them being on the street capabilities, they should all be graded the same lines of the job appraisal. Just because one officer is better on the street is better than another should not entitle him/her as a better working condition or have more pay and compensation than another officer who may have a better shot at and close shooting range. There are a few officer who are great at handling an individual person with whom they come in contact with. You also have police officer who are better in a crowd as certain police officers can control certain situations. It would not be a very healthy situation for the city of Mason, Illinois, to have some officers who would receive more compensation and benefits due to having strictly as their bi-yearly performance appraisals. Since the town and the residents would receive a possible backlash from disgruntled police officers this shows an unfair policy. To do otherwise and pit those with better agility or skills against with lesser amounts would be unfair and discriminatory. Under the Conditional Law, the rights of the individual are at stake, along with Private Laws governing small groups and Civil Law having jurisdiction in contract. This case is an act of discrimination, which is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title V1.
Case Study 2

John felt that he was evicted by Maureen, his landlord, for being too old. When he spoke to her on the phone, she said that she might have difficulty "matching" him because of his age. In response to the allegations, Maureen claimed that the decision to ask John to leave was not based on his age but his incompatibility with other tenants, and undesirable character traits. For example, on visits she sometimes felt frightened for her own safety and that of the other female occupant. Maureen had offered John free rent while he looked for other accommodation, but he choose to move out immediately. Since this case is based on discrimination and not about work related, but with the incompatibility with other tenants and undesirable character traits. Discrimination cases does not have to be about limited or be involved with employees of any companies, but rather they could include clients such as having a roommate. The victim in this case is entitled to damages that would include the loss of income, the emotional stress that was induce is this company and action and accusations is also their attorney’s charges. So the courts can give John double the sum of damages awarded, which is related to the Federal law. The state law can show John that he would be awarded as to the Federal law. Then the State law can show John could receive triple in damages. There is no doubt that the individual has been discriminated against anything that would receive damages. If the charges were based on his age this can be brought out and show the differential treatment to John. In many cases the direct proof is a statement such as “We would like to see someone more energetic or younger in this position.” But today in the workplace is a rare statement that would be made. And since John’s landlady said his age had nothing to do with her asking him to move, the charges of discrimination lies with the stress and emotional duress with John who did experience as he was informed that he was incompatible with others and he possessed undesirable character traits. In most instances there isn’t enough proof to show and therefore the courts would not use what is available evidence in front of him. As far as rent free goes, John wind up moving out as he quickly as he can, because he felt embarrassed, frustrated, and too stressed out by all the allegations that was being made against him. The Anti- Age Discrimination statue is to invoke the prevention of any violations. Liability comes when it has been determine that a form of unlawful treatment has indeed occurred and this instance it did went under protected. The EEOC which means Commission is a form of guidance to the Supreme Court in Faragher, and Ellerth this would advised the employers to those who are in authority that they should do everything necessary in the prevention of harassment.
Case Study 3
Shortly before a lecture, William, a nontraditional student at a metropolitan higher education facility, suffered an epileptic seizure. In a post-seizure confusion state, he partly removed his clothes. Thereafter, staff members pressured him to withdraw from the course, telling him that, "the only option is an Internet course.” The staff explained that the organization shared the facility with a charter elementary school, and they were concerned young students might witness something inappropriate.

This type of case should be classified as an intentional Tort with Libel or Slander that would be attach to it. The unfortunate incident that occurred, William was victimized from the actions of others that has caused him to defamation of character, and the infliction of mental distress. This person should have been treated with a civil manner in which William was not. This Tort has all of the elements of Intentional Infliction, and the staff members acted with willful intentional and recklessness. Their type of conduct was an extreme nature and had an outrageous content. But by their conduct has caused severe emotional distress for William. All of this involves anger and abusiveness along with other types of irrational outbursts and bad behavior that results in William being afflicted with tremendous amount of mental distress which is not advantageous or healthy for him to endure. The intentional infliction of emotional distress was generated in order to handle a problem before it became a problem to the common law. The common law would not permit liability as the threat was not nearby, but it could inflict emotional harm to the one who is receiving this. Intention infliction is common emotional distress which was made to protect from emotional abuse. This gives the victim emotional distress that was received and the compensation in these circumstances where it was not receive by any compensation otherwise under the common law. The compensatory damages makes the person again should be given to William intentional infliction of emotional distress. This case I believe is an Intentional Tort. Case Study 4 A 68-year-old man lodged a complaint that he had been discriminated against because of his age at work. He said that his supervisor had made comments about needing to get his eyes checked and that he should begin to think about retirement. The complainant said that his supervisor would yell, scream, and accuse him of being to slow at his work. He also said that after slipping and falling at work the store manager accused him of having a blackout.
This case sounds like age discrimination and the definition indicate an employer cannot unfairly treat an employee or potential employee due to that person being over 40. With this law which is the same as Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which also protects workers under the age of 40. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the government agency that would receive the claims of age discrimination. But the nature of this case is age discrimination in which it relates to not only his age, but has been harassed. The prime indication for a complete disregard for the rights of others. The definition of Intentional Tort the field of this law from the EEOC shows a definite relationship toward disability by the discrimination of the person’s age. But it’s clear that the manager tried all sorts of methods of stress and anxiety to coercion and intimidation by bullying and pressuring the 68 year old man to quit. Within one year the EEOC had received over 14, 000 claims in regarding the discrimination of one’s age (ehow.com). Since the consequences with this being capable by many forms by applying the vast amounts of individuals. Age discrimination is the fastest growing fields within the law an in 1999 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did in fact received over 14,141 claims that was related to age discrimination in a workplace (ehow.com). This type of act prohibits discrimination in any workplace should not be about race, religion, sex, or politics, and disability. The consequences that forms any age discrimination from any workplace can result a severe punishment from the discriminator as this would be a severe punishment for the discriminator, which includes termination. Any type of discrimination is not limited to employees, but include applicant and clients, so through all the bullying and pressure that was places upon him the man did not quit, but instead filed a law suit against his manager for discrimination.
Case Study 5
Chris, a 65-year-old man, saw an ad in the newspaper for a cashier at Groceries for You. The advertisement specified, "Applicant must be young and energetic and possess excellent customer relations skills. Applicants who are selected would be required to stand for long periods of time and to lift 20 to 30 pounds." Chris contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to institute a charge against Groceries for You.
Again this case is about age and you do not have to be young in age to advertise that could be young at heart and still have a good attitude about it. This type of suite would not go anywhere legally because it does not specifically state an age. The 75 year old person who is 62 would be considered younger. As long as the applicant is energetic and does not show any signs of slow movements and shows his personality to interact with customers. I don’t see any charges that would show any that would be about groceries for you. This type of advertisement stated that the person hired a cashier that would stand for long periods of time and they are able to lift items that are at least 20 to 30 pounds at a time. This person should be young, and energetic and show good personality by meeting and greeting their customers. They should be able to adapt themselves by being able to learn to stand for long periods of time. If they show any signs of problem “it can be done” Chris instituted a legal law suit against the (Grocery for you), I don’t see any power that this would hold up in court because of the jurisdiction or subjects for that matter that would be involved. I don’t see any case that would indicate Age Discrimination, only because the manager simply said “you would have to be standing on your legs for long periods of time, and you would need to be able to lift 20 to 30 pounds of certain items.”

References:
Effective Management of Long Term Care Facilities, (2010). samples.jbpub.com/9780763774035/74035_FMXx_5368.pdf www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intentional_of_emotional_distress http://www.ehow.com/about_7548066-constitutes-age-discrimination.html