Scenario #v1: Mary and the Bell’s Freight Lines While it seems that she case a case, it must be very difficult to prove discrimination for her disability. The information in this scenario it is indicating that the hiring personnel told her that her disability is one the reasons, they did not hire her. Under the ADA’s laws, Bell’s Fright Lines is clearly discriminating her. As a consequence, she has a case. She is most likely to prevail, because the hiring personnel expressed this reason. However, one must have to remember that an employer has not obligation to hire anyone. A good employer should hire the best option. In this case the defendant has to proof that she was not the best option. Moreover, they are also discriminating her, because
…show more content…
As a consequence, consulting with a friend who has not traveled to Mount Kilimanjaro in the last ten years was risky and a great liability issue for the travel agency. Consequently, the agency will reimburse the $2000, which Michael spent to get another ticket home. Moreover, the travel agency is directly responsible for Michael’s ordeal, because they did not pay the guide. However, Michael should sue for negligence both, the guide who left him stranded and Myrtle Travel Agency. Any monetary problems the guide has to deal with the agency, is an issue that he has to solve with the agency and not with Michael. Leaving Michael alone was irresponsible, negligent, and cruel. As a consequence both will pay compensatory damages for his injuries, pain and suffering, and emotional distress; and most likely punitive damages too, because both lack professionalism, responsibility, and strong training. In addition Michael will get limited recovery for his lost luggage. Both violated the Air carrier Access Act (ACAA) by providing degrading practices. Moreover, the agency is guilty of false representation, negligent and false representations; since they are not licensed or registered to provide travel …show more content…
In this case, one can decide that the Courtyard Hotel is not trying to create confusion and using it to make profits fraudulently. The problem is coming from a miscommunication problem. Under these circumstances, one can infer that the Regent hotel should prevail in court. Scenario # 6: If the hotel, is already properly licensed is possible that the judge oversee the fact, that one its employees forgot to renew their license in time. As a consequence it is most probably that we will not prevail in court, considering that the transaction occurred when the hotel was not authorized to book and serve guests. They will probably lose this rent.
Scenario # 7: The Franklyn Restaurant and Stan Williams One can advise the hotel to stop trying to fire Stan, because they knew and accept the risks when they hired him. Firing him now, will definitely result in a lawsuit for discrimination against a person with disabilities. Moreover, they should provide medical care and the loss of salaries for the other two employees. Human beings have not the power to prevent accidents. They will occur without
As a consequence, consulting with a friend who has not traveled to Mount Kilimanjaro in the last ten years was risky and a great liability issue for the travel agency. Consequently, the agency will reimburse the $2000, which Michael spent to get another ticket home. Moreover, the travel agency is directly responsible for Michael’s ordeal, because they did not pay the guide. However, Michael should sue for negligence both, the guide who left him stranded and Myrtle Travel Agency. Any monetary problems the guide has to deal with the agency, is an issue that he has to solve with the agency and not with Michael. Leaving Michael alone was irresponsible, negligent, and cruel. As a consequence both will pay compensatory damages for his injuries, pain and suffering, and emotional distress; and most likely punitive damages too, because both lack professionalism, responsibility, and strong training. In addition Michael will get limited recovery for his lost luggage. Both violated the Air carrier Access Act (ACAA) by providing degrading practices. Moreover, the agency is guilty of false representation, negligent and false representations; since they are not licensed or registered to provide travel …show more content…
In this case, one can decide that the Courtyard Hotel is not trying to create confusion and using it to make profits fraudulently. The problem is coming from a miscommunication problem. Under these circumstances, one can infer that the Regent hotel should prevail in court. Scenario # 6: If the hotel, is already properly licensed is possible that the judge oversee the fact, that one its employees forgot to renew their license in time. As a consequence it is most probably that we will not prevail in court, considering that the transaction occurred when the hotel was not authorized to book and serve guests. They will probably lose this rent.
Scenario # 7: The Franklyn Restaurant and Stan Williams One can advise the hotel to stop trying to fire Stan, because they knew and accept the risks when they hired him. Firing him now, will definitely result in a lawsuit for discrimination against a person with disabilities. Moreover, they should provide medical care and the loss of salaries for the other two employees. Human beings have not the power to prevent accidents. They will occur without