Roe v Wade 1973 Week 3 Case Analysis

WEEK 1

Week 3: Case Analysis

Young v. Becker & Poliakoff, Court of Appeals of Florida, Fourth District (2012)

Parties

The plaintiff was Jacquelyn N. Young (the appellant), and the other party involved was the law associate firm, Becker & Poliakoff (the appellee) (Find Law, n.a.).

Facts

Jacquelyn Young hired an associate law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, to represent her in the lawsuit against her employer, who became the source of federal employment discrimination. The law firm attached the wrong documents of the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when it filed for the case in the court, which the court immediately dismissed (Find Law, n.a.). The firm did not bother informing Young about it, and after thirteen months, the law firm told Young it could not further pursue her case as it had been dismissed. The law firm told her it wanted to withdraw, to which later Young came to know the firm was doing so as it was repr4esenting other employees of the same company. The rule of their contract prevented the law firm from suing the employer, and therefore the law firm deliberately submitted the wrong EEOC document, Young perceived.

The court also agreed with the fact that Becker & Poliakoff kept the truth hidden from Young and had to be charged with compensatory damage charges of $394,000 with the inclusion of $144,000 for the previously lost salaries and another $250,000 for the pain and psychological distress the law firm created for Young (Find Law, n.a.). It was considered legal malpractice, and the court found it evident that the law firm withheld the information from Young to gain a $2.9 million fee from the case pursued by the same employer.

Procedure

Both parties appealed in the court against the decision. The court dismissed $2 million in penal charges for finding no receiving that the law firm would have accepted the reward without facing insolvency.

Issue

When Young identified that a conflict of interest arose for the law firm under which, the circumstances took a turn for the firm, exposing it for intentionally submitting the wrong EEOC document in the court initially and then delaying the revelation of the court dismissal to her (Cooper, 2015, p. 468). The issue mainly stemmed from the fiduciary duty of Becker & Poliakoff, for which a breach of the legal practice was observed.

Explain the Applicable Law

The laws applicable in this case are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act presented in 1964, which the law firm used for Young to file her case in the initial phases of the discrimination that she believed her employer conducted (Find Law, n.a.). This law clearly states the prohibition of employment discrimination should be observed based on color, race, sex, religion, or ethnicity (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.a.). Also, the attorney-client or agency-client relationship came into the spotlight when the law firm did not disclose the law’s decision to Young and kept it withheld, ruining trust and disrespecting her within the relationship (Mureiko, 1988).

Holding

The court held that Young was falsely led by her law firm and charged the firm for having done wrong to her. On the other hand, the court held that there is no sufficient evidence that Becker & Poliakoff would have accepted the remuneration without facing insolvency.