Case Questions Week 7 2
-R. Williams Construction Co v. OSHRC, Ch 15, p 548 -What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide? -The legal issue in this case is if the Williams is responsible for violating OSHA’s standard safety regulations when the trench collapsed, and an employee was killed because of the accident. The court decide that the company was to be cited for violating the OSHA safety standards. -What exactly did the employer do or fail to do that violated the OSH act? -The employer violated the OSH act by 1) failing to ensure that employees were trained on how to avoid all hazardous conditions, 2) failed to make sure workers did not go more than 25 feet from a safe area, 3) failed to have a properly …show more content…
Buckee Valley High School, Ch 16, p 614 -What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide? -The legal issue is whether Rosebrough was an eligible person to be covered under a eligible person to be covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The appeals court reversed the decision of the district court granting judgment to Buckeye Valley, and remanded for more proceeding. -The district court decided that the plaintiff was not “otherwise qualified”, because she did not have a commercial driver’s license. Why did the appeals court reject the conclusion? -The appeals court rejected the conclusion that Rosebrough was not “otherwise qualified”, because she did not have a commercial driver’s license, because she had trained for the position and was considered “trained”. So, a commercial driver’s license was not needed for Rosebrough to be “otherwise qualified” for the position. -Suppose that the coworker who said that it would take much more time to train the plaintiff and that she would not be able to drive some buses was right about those things. Can the school district legitimately take those factors into account in deciding whether to train and ultimately employ the plaintiff? Given safety concerns, should she be hired as a school driver even if she obtains her CDL? Why or Why …show more content…
From the limited facts provided, does it appear that she will be able to do so? --Yes, she will be able to establish a prima facie case, because all elements required can be proven. The prima facie case of discriminator discharge can be shown, because (1 Rosebrough is disabled, 2) she was otherwise qualified for the position, with or without recommendations, 3) she endured an adverse action, and 4) the job remained open for employment. -Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not? -I do not agree with the court’s decision, because Rosebrough proved the case of prima facie. She has a case of discriminator, but not disparate treatment under the
-R. Williams Construction Co v. OSHRC, Ch 15, p 548 -What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide? -The legal issue in this case is if the Williams is responsible for violating OSHA’s standard safety regulations when the trench collapsed, and an employee was killed because of the accident. The court decide that the company was to be cited for violating the OSHA safety standards. -What exactly did the employer do or fail to do that violated the OSH act? -The employer violated the OSH act by 1) failing to ensure that employees were trained on how to avoid all hazardous conditions, 2) failed to make sure workers did not go more than 25 feet from a safe area, 3) failed to have a properly …show more content…
Buckee Valley High School, Ch 16, p 614 -What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide? -The legal issue is whether Rosebrough was an eligible person to be covered under a eligible person to be covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The appeals court reversed the decision of the district court granting judgment to Buckeye Valley, and remanded for more proceeding. -The district court decided that the plaintiff was not “otherwise qualified”, because she did not have a commercial driver’s license. Why did the appeals court reject the conclusion? -The appeals court rejected the conclusion that Rosebrough was not “otherwise qualified”, because she did not have a commercial driver’s license, because she had trained for the position and was considered “trained”. So, a commercial driver’s license was not needed for Rosebrough to be “otherwise qualified” for the position. -Suppose that the coworker who said that it would take much more time to train the plaintiff and that she would not be able to drive some buses was right about those things. Can the school district legitimately take those factors into account in deciding whether to train and ultimately employ the plaintiff? Given safety concerns, should she be hired as a school driver even if she obtains her CDL? Why or Why …show more content…
From the limited facts provided, does it appear that she will be able to do so? --Yes, she will be able to establish a prima facie case, because all elements required can be proven. The prima facie case of discriminator discharge can be shown, because (1 Rosebrough is disabled, 2) she was otherwise qualified for the position, with or without recommendations, 3) she endured an adverse action, and 4) the job remained open for employment. -Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not? -I do not agree with the court’s decision, because Rosebrough proved the case of prima facie. She has a case of discriminator, but not disparate treatment under the