Question

.Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:

Google for a case and explain the following

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SUES WAL-MART FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION

Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]

Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]

Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]

Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]

Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.

Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]

Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision]

Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or another interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or another important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.

Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation.

Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar, and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds!

Wrap up with a Conclusion slide. This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.

Include citations on the slides and a reference slide with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.

Submit your assignment.

Answer 1

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Sues Wal-Mart for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation

Parties involved:

• David Gallo worked with Wal-Mart in Placerville, California
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Plaintiff)
• Wal-Mart (Defendant )

Facts:

• David Gallo suffered from atrial fibrillation that causes shortness of breath and difficulty walking.
• New store manager banded Gallo from parking in the handicap parking spaces
• David Gallo filed complaint with EEOC against Wal-Mart’s failure to accommodate for his disability (September 2008).
• After eight months he was fired for error made by subordinate, where no action was taken against subordinate and inspector who reviewed.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from treating disable employees in inappropriate manner. This act also makes it mandatory for employers to provide necessary accommodation to disabled employees and applicants.

• EEOC sued Wal-Mart for retaliation when they fired Gallo when he took action to protect his civil right.

Procedure:

• David Gallo made complaint with EEOC against Wal-Mart’s for failure to accommodate his disability
• EEOC brought the appeal first to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
• EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:11-AT-01806
• EEOC demanded monetary damages on behalf of Gallo, and training for Wal-Mart on the ADA and other steps to prevent such incidences of discrimination and retaliation in future.

Issue:

Wal-Mart has been accused for 13 different cases of disability discrimination by EEOC throughout U.S. Will hiring an ADA coordinator help Wal-Mart understand their obligation to accommodate disabled people?

The applicable law(s):

• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. (ADA) (equal opportunities should be available for both people with and without disabilities).
• Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991

Holding:

• EEOC won the case.
• Court ordered defendant following:

oWal-Mart should stick to policy of disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

oDefendant will conduct the training regarding disability discrimination and reasonable accommodation and provide EEOC with copy of course syllabus and other related document.

oMonitory relief of $40,000.00 ($20,000.00 for allocated wages and ($20,000.00 for allocated damages) should be paid to David Gallo.

Reasoning:

The court’s decision was very fair. It was based on The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Civil Rights Act. Every employee have equal rights and based on disabilities government have given some provisions to disabled people at work place. These amendments should be strictly followed.

Conclusion:

EEOC fights for the rights of employees. And in this case correct measures were taken by EEOC to protect the rights of David Gallo. Retail giants like Wal-Marts must set examples for other organizations by sticking to laws and doing what is correct. The decision taken by court was absolutely accurate.