Business and Personal Law

Chapter 15: Employment Law

Case Study Extended Practice

1. Peter Rabbit Farms, owned and operated by John Powell, grew beets, which were harvested by members of the United Farm Workers (UFW). After two years, Powell decided to stop growing beets. The UFW filed a complaint with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, who decided that Powell’s decision to stop growing beets was subject to collective bargaining. Powell appealed the board’s decision to the California courts. On appeal, the UFW argued that Powell had stopped growing beets and had sublet 61 acres to Sam Keosean, who grew beets and delivered them to Powell. Powell argued that he had no control over what Keosean grew and the beets were simply a rental payment for the acres. Therefore, Powell concluded that the decision was not subject to collective bargaining. Is Powell correct? Explain your answer. Cardinal Distributing Company, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations, 205 Cal.Rptr. 860 (CA).
2. Painter decided to run for a seat on the city council of Cleveland. Accordingly, she asked for and received a leave of absence from her job. Two months later, she was discharged. She brought a wrongful discharge suit, arguing that she had been fired for exercising her constitutional rights under the Ohio State Constitution. What kind of a wrongful discharge lawsuit did Painter bring in this case? Will she succeed in her suit? Explain your answer. Painter v.Graley, 639 N.E2d 51 (OH).
3. The requirements for applicants who want to become state troopers in Virginia held that all potential troopers had to weigh at least 156 pounds and be at least 5 feet, 9 inches tall. Under these requirements, 98 percent of all female applicants were disqualified. The United States brought suit alleging a pattern of discrimination against female applicants. What type of discrimination is alleged here? Is the United States entitled to a judgment in this case? Explain your answer. United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 620 F.2d 1018 (4th Cir.).
4. James O'Connor, aged 56, worked for the Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation until he was fired and replaced by another worker who was 40 years old. O'Connor filed suit against Consolidated, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Empoyment Act (ADEA). Consolidated argued that it could not be held liable for a violation of the ADEA because the replacement for O'Connor was also within the protected class of workers aged 40 and older. Is Consolidated correct? Explain your answer. O'Connor v. Consolidated CoinCaterers Corporation, 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. Supreme Court).