Logan tells her boss, Diego, told her and five other women that they were his top employees, but none of them would be offered promotional opportunities with the company. When asked for an explanation, Diego told them that some of his traditional clients told him they would refuse to work with women, and if any of those clients decided to take their work to another vendor, he would suffer a significant economic loss.
Issues
1. Could the client sue the company for sexual discrimination.
2. Does the employer have a good defiance on not prompting the women candidates.
Applicable
In the case Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 the higher court found that the lower court error in judgement Granite the workers release under title VII. The court cited ( as we made clear in merit ed.2d 49, 106 s. Ct. 2399 (1986) this language is discrimination. The quoting that ( Los Angeles department of water and power v. Manthar, lbs us. 702,707,02, 707, n.13, 55 L. Ed. 2d …show more content…
McHugh, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92392 the court confirm give defendant's motion for summary judgement granted. The only time the summary can be granted is under rule 56 which, state ( "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (citing former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). When this burden is met, the non-moving party, then bears the burden of demonstrating that there are disputes of material fact so as to preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). To meet this burden, the party opposing summary judgment must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Id.; see also In re Apex Express Corp., 190 F.3d 624, 633 (4th Cir.
Issues
1. Could the client sue the company for sexual discrimination.
2. Does the employer have a good defiance on not prompting the women candidates.
Applicable
In the case Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 the higher court found that the lower court error in judgement Granite the workers release under title VII. The court cited ( as we made clear in merit ed.2d 49, 106 s. Ct. 2399 (1986) this language is discrimination. The quoting that ( Los Angeles department of water and power v. Manthar, lbs us. 702,707,02, 707, n.13, 55 L. Ed. 2d …show more content…
McHugh, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92392 the court confirm give defendant's motion for summary judgement granted. The only time the summary can be granted is under rule 56 which, state ( "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (citing former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). When this burden is met, the non-moving party, then bears the burden of demonstrating that there are disputes of material fact so as to preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). To meet this burden, the party opposing summary judgment must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Id.; see also In re Apex Express Corp., 190 F.3d 624, 633 (4th Cir.