Assignment Question And Scenarios For Case Analysis
CLEANED assignment question and scenarios for case analysis
Fully answer the questions associated with each case below and upload your completed document in the dropbox below. There are 6 cases, with 10 questions spread among them. Each question is worth 10 points for a total of 100 points.
Scenario: You are a paralegal with the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. Your boss attorney, Sharon Ripley, has asked you to answer some questions about some HR legal issues that have arisen.
Case 1: Joe Stromboli
Joe is a delivery driver for Weyland, and after an accident, Joe became 100% deaf in both ears. The doctors were unable to restore any of Joe’s hearing. Joe’s manager, Stephanie, believes that communication with employees and recipients of deliveries is an essential function of the job. Additionally, Joe needs to participate in team meetings. The manager was unsure whether to proceed, so she referred the case to Weyland-Yutani medical staff. The medical staff reviewed Joe and said no accommodation is possible, citing that Joe’s deafness made accommodation impossible. Joe was terminated and filed a lawsuit for failure to reasonably accommodate. The job description states that a Weyland-Yutani delivery driver must maintain a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), and delivery involves taking orders via hand radio, which Joe cannot do. However, Joe can receive text messages and emails on his cell phone, and he offered to carry pen and paper for communication. Joe’s deafness did not affect his ability to maintain his CDL, and the accommodations would be inexpensive. List and analyze:
- 1. Can Joe establish a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate his disability? Be sure to list the elements of the claim and show how you reached your conclusion.
- 2. What mistakes—if any—were made? How can these be corrected in the future?
Case 2: Johnson
Johnson is a floor supervisor. He spends 55% of his time on production and 45% on supervising his zone, scheduling, and personnel disputes. He also reports to superiors and earns 10% more than subordinates. He was initially classified as an FSLA exempt employee, but he now challenges this classification. Johnson often arrives early, about an hour before official start time, to prepare equipment and perform pre-shift tasks. Weyland knew he arrived early and worked 45 hours weekly without paying overtime, despite a strict no-overtime policy. Address the following:
- 3. Is Johnson an exempt employee under FLSA standards? Discuss applicable legal standards and factors considered.
- 4. Was Johnson’s pre-shift work preliminary? Why or why not?
- 5. Was Johnson’s work de minimis? Explain.
- 6. Does Weyland’s policy against overtime mean they do not have to pay him for overtime hours?
Case 3: Weyland’s Pension Plan Modification
Weyland wishes to modify their pension plan, which currently offers employees either $500 per month or a $100,000 lump sum upon retirement, plus a yearly company retreat cruise ticket for both options. They intend to tie the cruise eligibility to the $500 monthly option and apply it retroactively to the lump sum option. Analyze whether this modification violates ERISA regulations and why.
Case 4: Union Organizing Campaign
Weyland became aware of a union organizing campaign. During meetings, employees were told not to discuss union activities, and union flyers posted on bulletin boards were removed. The company instituted policies requiring approval for posting materials and refused to allow employees to distribute union materials at work or in the parking lot during off-hours. They warned employees against distributing union buttons or flyers on company property. Assess whether Weyland engaged in unfair labor practices based on these actions.
Case 5: Employee Interrogation and Rights
A 19-year-old salesperson was questioned for three hours by security officers in a small room, where she was told to sign an unwarranted waiver of her rights. She asked for clarification, was told it “doesn’t mean anything” unless she did something wrong, and was threatened with jail unless she signed a confession. She signed under duress, was fired two days later, and claims emotional distress. Evaluate whether she has a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on these circumstances.
Case 6: Female Crane Operator and Disparate Impact/Treatment
A female crane operator was told it was Weyland policy that crane operators urinate over the side of the crane rather than take bathroom breaks, justified by staff shortages. Similar policies apply to male operators. Determine whether she has a valid sex discrimination claim under:
- Disparate impact (whether the policy disproportionately affects women),
- Disparate treatment (whether she was intentionally targeted or treated differently based on sex).
Paper For Above instruction
...
References
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
- Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.
- NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)
- Gates v. City of New York, 2013 WL 2154002 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
- EEOC Guidance on Disability Discrimination, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2
- U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #22: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, and Professional Employees
- National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169