Civil Rights Act and Discrimination at Work

Case Analysis

Case 1: Palmateer v. International Harvester Company,85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)

Parties: In the case of Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.

Facts: The facts of the case revolved around the plaintiff's claim that he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company.

Issue: The issue at stake was whether or not the defendant company had acted within the bounds of the law, with respect to at-will termination.

Applicable Laws: The case involves the tort of retaliatory discharge in Illinois, i.e., termination is not justified when termination undermines public policy, i.e., the common good.

Holding: The holding of the court was that the plaintiff had indeed been wrongfully terminated, and awarded him damages accordingly.

Reasoning: The reasoning was that the defendant had undermined public policy by engaging in retaliatory discharge.

Conclusion: As is pointed out, “the foundation of the tort of retaliatory discharge lies in the protection of public policy, and there is a clear public policy favoring investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses” (p. 99). My recommendations are same as the court’s: The defendant was protected under public policy from being terminated from providing law enforcement with useful information that would ultimately be used to protect and maintain the common good of the community by bringing justice to criminal actors within the company that terminated the defendant.

Case 2: Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, 2017 WL (M.D. Fla. 2017)

Parties: The parties are Generations Salon proprietors (plaintiff) and Silver Salon proprietors (defendants). The defendants were formerly employees of the plaintiff, Cangemi et al.

Facts: Generations Salon accuses Cangemi and Calianno of breaching the terms of their non-compete agreements, breaching their fiduciary duties, violating the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, as well as violating Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, FLA. STAT. § 688.001.

Issue: Protection of trade secrets are apparently at issue, justifying the non-compete clause; also the issue of soliciting and diverting clients to defendants’ Silver Salon. Cangemi et al. claim they did not learn anything from Generations that they did not already know.

Applicable Law: Applicable laws are the FDTSA and the state’s UTSA, as noted above.

Holding: Injunction was granted to the plaintiffs, barring defendants from soliciting customers from Generations Salon or marketing so as to compete against Generations.

Reasoning: The judge reasoned that it was in the interest of the public that an injunction should be awarded to the plaintiff based on case precedent (N. Am. Prods. Corp. v. Moore).

Conclusion: The defendants had all worked at Generations Salon, and they each signed a non-compete agreement which prohibited them from working for a competing salon within a certain distance of Generations Salon. The court saw it as enforceable among other torts. I recommend against an injunction as the grounds are flimsy.

Case 3: Herawi v. State of Alabama, Department of Forensic Sciences, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Ala. 2004)

Parties: Ms. Herawi (plaintiff) accuses defendant (State of Alabam) for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Facts: The plaintiff in the case, Ms. Herawi, is an Iranian woman who was employed by the State of Alabama as a forensic scientist. after Department terminated her based on race and nationality, plaintiff sued alleging that she was retaliated against for complaints and that she was harassed during employment.

Issue: The issue in this case is whether the State of Alabama violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Ms. Herawi on the basis of his religion. The act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In its defense, the State of Alabama argued that Ms. Herawi had not been treated differently from other employees and that there was no evidence that she had been subject to discrimination.

Applicable Laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Holding: Judgment was granted to plaintiff based on evidence provided at hearing, supporting allegations against the state and the Department.

Reasoning: Prejudice and discrimination are a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Conclusion: The plaintiff won judgment based on evidence supporting allegations of racial discrimination. My recommendation aligns with the court’s based on the same.

Case 4: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)

Parties: The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) is a federal employees union that represents workers in various agencies, including the U.S. Customs Service (plaintiff). The defendannt Von Raab, Commissioner of theUnited States Customs Service.

Facts: US Customs Service began drug testing employees. The Employees Union believed this was a violation of Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Issue: The issue revolved around the U.S. Customs Service's decision to implement a drug testing program for employees who were seeking promotion to positions that required them to carry firearms or be involved in drug interdiction. The NTEU argued that the program was an unreasonable search and seizure, and thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Applicable Law: Fourth Amendment law gives a reasonable right to privacy to all citizens.

Holding: The Supreme Court sided with defendant, saying defendant had a right to order drug tests.

Reasoning: Reason for the decision was based on the fact that employees had access to guns and therefore needed to be judged as sober, hence the requisite testing.

Conclusion: The preservation of public safety overrides citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights in this case. My recommendation does not align with the Court’s. Sobriety should be determined by direct observation—testing not made mandatory.

Case 5: Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)

Parties: The plaintiff, Local 28, represents sheet metal workers employed by contractors in the New York City metropolitan area. The defendant The defendant was the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.