1.  Membership in a protected Class

2.  Applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants

3.   Was rejected, after which the employer continued to look for applicants with similar qualifications

defense to disparate treatment

and then what plaintiff must prove:

defense: a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision

Plaintiff: Prove the reason is a pretext for discrimination. 

show that the defense lacks rationality and was not uniformly applied

Smith v. City of Jackson

Officer pay to equalize, not a violoation of

Title VII/ ADEA because there was a

"reasonable factor other than age "

BFOQ - Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

Professionally developed ability test

Seniority systems

United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls

woman allowed to work with lead, it is their perogative.  to not allow it is discriminatory

1.  Quid Pro Quod

2.  Hostile Environment Harassment

Quid Pro Quod (Harassment)

Benefits are exchanged for sexual favors

(date me or you're fired)

Harris v. Forklift

Harris was harassed, needed to meet factors...

def - Unwelcome sexual conduct creating a hostile or offensive environment

1.  Frequency

2.  Severity

3.  Physically threatening or humiliating

4.  Unreasonably interferes with job performance

5.  Has a psychological Impact

Not all necessary, but all important

Equal Pay Act

exception: seniority,

earnings based on quality/quantity

factors other than sex

ADEA

General Dynamics v. Cline

retirement benefits for older workers only.

ADEA not to protect younger workers

Americans with Disabilites Act

 Toyota v. Williams

got carpel tunnel, got fired eventually

needed to meet criteria...

1.  A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such and individual

2.  A record of such impairment

3.  Being regarded has having such an impairment

Williams did not meet this because work activities don't equal life activities

contracts on sale of goods

goods=tangible commodies capable of being moved from place to place

determined by behvior, not feeling.

if a reasonable person would think they intend to contract, than they do

Lefkowitz v. Surplus store

Replied to an ad, gave over the money, refused the deal.  Court overturned since there was no mention of needing to be a male in the ad

Intention to be bound by the offer

Mirror image rule - each changed offer = counteroffer, last one sent stands

Changes the mirror image rule. 

A document intended as acceptance is acceptance even though it has new terms

The new terms are only proposals though, and only apply if both parties agree to them.

If both parties are merchants than the new terms apply automatically unless one of the following:

 1.  The offer expressly limited the acceptance to the terms of the offer

2.  The offeror notifies the offeree of it's objection to the new terms

3.  The new terms materially change the contract

bilateral contract

unilateral contract

bilateral = offer/acceptance (home owner contracts a roofer, roofer gets paid to do work)

unilateral =  paid only upon completion (such as a reward for lost w/e)

There is consideration if:

1. There is a legal detriment by the promisee

which

2.  is bargained for by the promisor

a contract is not enforceable that has someone do something they are already legally bound to do (eg not cheat on an exam)

changes the contract = no good.

certain contracts that must be written

to be enforceable

1.  In consideration of Marriage

2.  For sale of goods over $500

3.  for transfer of real property other than leases for less than 1 year

4.  For contracts that, by their terms, cannot be completed within 1 year

5.  To answer for the debt of another

written evidence

or 

UCC 2-201 - written confirmation (amazon...)

or

when performance can only be expained by the existence of such an oral contract

Davies v. Martel

davies offered a position, fired later, sued, they said she had not consideration.

consideration assumed because there was no other reason for her to be in the MBA program, and that was a detriment

1.  There must be a promise from promisor to promisee

2.  There must be realiance on the promise by the promisee

3.  The reliance must be of substantial economic detriment to the promisee

Campbell v. Virginia Metal

campbell took the contract based on virginia's offer.  campbell made a bid based on that offer and won.

virginia withdrew the offer.

Virgina forced to pay under promissory estoppel

People under 18 and people mentally infirm cannot be held for contracts

a minor can disaffirm a contract they are in (the adult cannot)

Art's Flower Shop v. C&P Telephone

Art's bought space, C&P didn't put it in but limited liability.  court overturned limited liability due to them being a monopoly and Art's having had no one else to turn to

Wiley v. Royal Cup

Wiley not allowed to compete where he was or even near him.  Court said he can't where he used to be to protect company secrets there, but he IS allowed outside that area, because the only reason he wouldn't be would be to limit his ability to compete with the company

Express Conditions - must be meet exclusively

Constructive conditions - must be met substantially

unforeseen circumstances

 death

frustration of purpose - the reason for doing something is no longer there

Expectation - returns Victim to had the contract gone through

Reliance - returns Victim to had the contract never been made

Restitution - puts BREACHING party where had the contract never been made

specific performance -  makes the breaching party fulfill their duty (up to the court)

State Farm v. Campbell

State Farm refused to settle, wouldn't pay amount over coverage when lost in court.

1.  Degree of Reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct

2.  Disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive award

3.  The difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and those of similar cases

Battery - unwanted touching of any kind

Assaul - causeing someone to be aprehensive about battery (threatening words/motions)

Agis v. Howard Johnson Company

Agis fired b/c her name started with A, referred back to see if she could prove the quide posts

1.  The actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should ahve known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct

 2.   That the conduct was "extreme and outrageous"

3.  That the actions of the defendant were the cause of plaintiff's distress

4.  That the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was "severe" and of a nature the "no reasonable man could be expected to endure it"

Libel - written

slander - oral

causes injury to a person's reputation

1.  The tortfeaser made a defamtory statement

2.  The tortfeaser intended to communicate the defamatory statement

3.  The defamatory statement identies the victim to a reasonable person

4.  The defamatory statement was communicated to a third party

5.  The victim's Reputation was damaged

def - assumed to damage one's reputation

1.  a statement adversely reflecting on a person's business, trade, or profession

2.  A statement that a person is afflicted with a loathesome communicable disease

3.  A statement that a person has committed a crime or moral turpitude

4.  A statement imputing unchaste behavior to a person

1.  a false representation of a material fact

2.  knowledge by the person making the representation

3.  an intent to induce the listener to rely on the representation

4.  Justifiable reliance on the representation by the listener

5.  Damage to the duped party resulting from such reliance

physical entry or peering into a home, bank acct., etc.

case: Rushing v. Hershey

Rushing inconclusive urinalysis test, refused another, fired.

dismissed because missed the attachaments and there was not reason for it to be private in the work environment

1.  The defendant should have realized that his conduct woud be offensive to a reasonable person

2.  The intrusion goes beyond the limits of decency

spreading lies that will mislead people

(saying someone is dead when they're not

false statements that injure a persons's interst in property (saying a butcher sells spoiled meat)

must show actual losses

imitating the name, label, TM, etc of another company to gain busniess/stea/hurt their business

(counterfeiting)

(for movables)

1.  Interference with the owner's right of possession

2.  intent by the tortfeaser to do the act that constuted interference

3.  Interference caused damage to the owner's property

physical tresspassing

 1.  Physically entering someon's property

2.  Putting the events in motion that causes something to invade another's property

(pollutants, flooding, w/e)

Substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of an interest in land

(eg: smoke, odor, noise, vibrations)

how the court weighs the utility of the individual using the land vs. the harm that is causes others. 

If the harm outweighs the utility it is a nuissance

if firing an emplyees contravenes public policy (public policy must be defined under a state law)

ex: man fired for refusing to pump where pumping is illegal = wrongful discharge

Consent - allowed b/c someone said it was (dependant on actual conduct not feeling) - eg:hospital makes ppl sign a form

Priviledge - allowed b/c of job, circumstance, w/e

1.  The existance of a duty to excercise the degree of case that a reasonable and prudent person would excercise under similar circumstances

2.  A breach of that duty by a failure to adhere to the standard of reasonable conduct

3.  That the reasonable conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury

 4.  Actual injury to the plaintiff

was the defendant under a duty to protect the plaintiff?

van case - wiegh social utility vs costs of precations

actual - direct and causal: would it have happened but for the actions of the defendant?

proximate - was it forseeable?

Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone

Bigbee was hit by a car while in a telephone booth by the highway.  was the company at fault?

 1.  the existance of a duty to protect plaintiff from the injuries

2.  the ability to foresee this (was it proximate?)

- back to trial to be determined

violates a statute.  unreasonable if:

1.  the injured person is within the class protected by the statute

2.  The unjury was of the type that the statute was meant to prevent

mislabeled pills make guy sick = violation

corrogeated floor (for sanitation) makes woman trip is NOT a violation

"the thing speaks for itself"

Is used when an accident would not have occurred without an act of negligence

Trujeque v. Service Merchandise

chair broke under her, needed to show the store was responsible for the chair.

Court said that it was not enough to say just since she was sitting there that the store was not in control of the chair.  Control is not necessarily the only one who uses it, but the one who owned, operated and mainted it

sent back for trial

Contributory Negligence - the Plaintiff played a role and is therfore liable

Comparative negligence - the plaintiff played a role so judgement is reduced by the percent that they played

Assumption of risk - the plaintiff knew it was dangerous and did it anyway.  the defendant has no liability

where injury results from:

1.  a defective product that is unreasonably dangerous due to its defect

2.  the  keeping of dangerous or vicious animals

3.  abnormally dangerous antivities

1.  to reimburse a victim harmed by abnormally dangerous activities carried on voluntarily

2.  to treat the risk as a cost of engaging in said activity

generally the risk usually cannot be eliminated even with th eutmost care, but it is abnormally dangerous to keep for instance explosives in a city

Klein v. Pyrodyne

Klein was injured by a rogue firework.  Pyrodyne argued it wasn't strict liability.  the court held that it was since fireworks are "not of common usage" and present an "ineliminably high risk or bodily harm"