Instructions:
Please, read the three cases below and respond to the questions below each of the three cases. This assignment should be around 500 words including only the answers. Thanks!
Case 34.2 -Ballard v. Chicago Park District
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 741 F.3d XXXXXXXXXX).
Background and FactsBeverly Ballard worked for the Chicago Park District. She lived with her mother, Sarah, who suffered from end-stage congestive heart failure. Beverly served as Sarah’s primary caregiver with support from Horizon Hospice & Palliative Care. The hospice helped Sarah plan and secure funds for an end-of-life goal, a “family trip” to Las Vegas. To accompany Sarah as her caretaker, Beverly asked the Park District for unpaid time off under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA). The employer refused, but Beverly and Sarah took the trip as planned.
Later, the Park District terminated Beverly for “unauthorized absences.” She filed a suit in a federal district court against the employer. The court issued a decision in Beverly’s favor. The Park District appealed, arguing that Beverly had been absent from work on a “recreational trip.”
In the Language of the Court
FLAUM, Circuit Judge.
* * * *
We begin with the text of the [FMLA]: an eligible employee is entitled to leave “in order to care for” a family member with a “serious health condition.”
* * * *
* * *The FMLA’s text does not restrict care to a particular place or geographic location.For instance, it does not say that an employee is entitled to time off “to careat homefor” a family member.The only limitation it places on care is that the family member must have a serious health condition.We are reluctant, without good reason, to read in another limitation that Congress has not provided. [Emphasis added.]
* * * *
Sarah’s basic medical, hygienic, and nutritional needs did not change while she was in Las Vegas, and Beverly continued to assist her with those needs during the trip. In fact, * * * Beverly’s presence proved quite important indeed when a fire at the hotel made it impossible to reach their room, requiring Beverly to find another source of insulin and pain medicine. Thus, at the very least, [Beverly] requested leave in order to provide physical care.
* * * *
* * * The Park District describes [Beverly’s] travel as a “recreational trip” or a “non-medically related pleasure trip.” It also raises the specter that employees will help themselves to unpaid FMLA leave in order to take personal vacations, simply by bringing seriously ill family members along. So perhaps what the Park District means to argue is that the real reason Beverly requested leave was in order to take a free pleasure trip, and not in order to care for her mother. * * * However, * * * an employer concerned about the risk that employees will abuse the FMLA’s leave provisions may of course require that requests be certified by the family member’s health care provider. And any worries about opportunistic leave-taking in this case should be tempered by the fact that this dispute arises out of the hospice and palliative care context.
If Beverly had sought leave to care for her mother in Chicago, her request would have fallen within the scope of the FMLA. So too if Sarah had lived in Las Vegas instead of with her daughter, and Beverly had requested leave to care for her mother there. Ultimately, other than a concern that our straightforward reading will “open the door to increased FMLA requests,” the Park District gives us no reason to treat the current scenario any differently.
Questions:
What If the Facts Were Different?Suppose that Beverly had requested leave to make arrangements for a change in Sarah’s care, such as a transfer to a nursing home. Is it likely that the result would have been different? Explain.
Legal Environment:Under the FMLA, an employee is eligible for leave when he or she is needed to care for a family member. Should “needed to care for” be interpreted to cover only ongoing physical care? Discuss.
Case 35.3 -Roberts v. Mike’s Trucking, Ltd
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, 2014 -Ohio- 766, 9 N.E.3d XXXXXXXXXX).
Background and FactsTeresa Roberts worked for Mike’s Trucking, Ltd., in Columbus, Ohio. Her supervisor was the company’s owner, Mike Culbertson. According to Roberts, Culbertson called her his “sexretary” and constantly talked about his sex life. He often invited her to sit on “Big Daddy’s” lap, rubbed against her, trapped her at the door and asked her for hugs or kisses, and inquired if she needed help in the restroom. Roberts asked him to stop this conduct, but he did not. She became less productive and began to suffer anxiety attacks and high blood pressure. Roberts filed a suit in an Ohio state court against Mike’s, alleging a hostile work environment through sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. A jury decided in Roberts’s favor, and Mike’s appealed.
In the Language of the Court
HENDRICKSON, P.J. [Presiding Judge]
* * * *
* * * Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment—an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive—is beyond Title VII’s purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation. Therefore,the focus of this inquiry is: 1.) whether a reasonable person would find the environment objectively hostile; and 2.) whether the plaintiff subjectively found the conduct severe or pervasive.[Emphasis added.]
* * * *
* * * Roberts’ testimony was consistent with several witnesses affirming that Culbertson frequently engaged in a variety of conduct ranging from inappropriate discussions to groping women. The witnesses stated that Culbertson often discussed his sex life, asked Roberts and the women employees if they needed help in the bathroom * * *, referred to himself as “Big Daddy,” asked Roberts and the women employees to sit in “Big Daddy’s” lap, and asked them if they would give “Big Daddy” a hug.
The evidence established that the conduct occurred frequently. Roberts testified that throughout her employment, Culbertson’s behavior became increasingly worse and that * * * he talked about sex hundreds of times, and attempted to corner her and hug and kiss her at least twice a week. [Former Mike’s employees] testified that Culbertson talked about sex and asked the women if they needed help with the bathroom multiple times a week. The evidence also showed that the conduct became increasingly severe as Culbertson massaged Roberts [and] rubbed up against her * * *. Roberts testified that Culbertson’s conduct was humiliating towards her as his remarks were in front of others and she often became “furious” with him. Other employees reported Roberts becoming angry towards Culbertson. Roberts also established that Culbertson’s conduct unreasonably interfered with her work performance as she stated she did not want to go to work anymore, she became less productive, and she suffered anxiety attacks. Her fiancé testified that Roberts has lost confidence and that she is now prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
Consequently, there was sufficient and substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that a reasonable person would find Culbertson’s conduct created a hostile environment and Roberts found the conduct to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect her employment.
Questions:
Ethical:Was Culbertson’s conduct at any point unethical? Discuss.
Legal Environment:Culbertson and some other witnesses testified that he did not engage in any sexually inappropriate behavior. Should an appellate court reverse a jury’s decision simply due to contrary evidence? Why or why not?
Case 45.3 -Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States, 556 U.S. 208, 129 S.Ct. 1498, 173 L.Ed.2d XXXXXXXXXX).
Background and FactsAs part of its implementation of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed two sets of rules that apply to the cooling systems of power plants. Phase I rules require new power plants to restrict their inflow of water “to a level commensurate with that which can be attained by a closed-cycle recirculating cooling water system.” Phase II rules apply “national performance standards” to more than five hundred existing plants but do not require closed-cycle systems.
The EPA had found that converting these existing facilities to closed-cycle operations would cost $3.5 billion per year. The facilities would then produce less power while burning the same amount of coal. Moreover, other technologies can attain nearly the same results as closed-cycle systems. Phase II rules also allow a variance from the national performance standards if a facility’s cost of compliance “would be significantly greater than the benefits.”
Environmental organizations, including Riverkeeper, Inc., challenged the Phase II regulations, arguing that existing plants should be required to convert to closed-cycle systems. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor. Power-generating companies, including Entergy Corporation, appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
In the Language of the Court
JusticeSCALIAdelivered the opinion of the Court.
* * * *
In setting the Phase II national performance standards and providing for site-specific cost-benefit variances, the EPA relied on its view that [the] “best technology available” standard permits consideration of the technology’s costs and of the relationship between those costs and the environmental benefits produced.
* * * The “best” technology—that which is “most advantageous”—may well be the one that produces the most of some good, here a reduction in adverse environmental impact. But “best technology” may also describe the technology that most efficiently produces some good.In common parlance one couldcertainly use the phrase “best technology” to refer to that which produces a good at the lowest per-unit cost, even if it produces a lesser quantity of that good than other available technologies.[Emphasis added.]
* * * This latter reading is [not] precluded by the statute’s use of the phrase “for minimizing adverse environmental impact.”Minimizing* * *is a term that admits of degree and is not necessarily used to refer exclusively to the “greatest possible reduction.”[Emphasis added.]
Other provisions in the Clean Water Act also suggest the agency’s interpretation. When Congress wished to mandate the greatest feasible reduction in water pollution, it did so in plain language: The provision governing the discharge of toxic pollutants into the Nation’s waters requires the EPA to set “effluent limitations which shall require the elimination of discharges of all pollutants * * *.” The less ambitious goal of “minimizing adverse environmental impact” suggests, we think, that the agency retains some discretion to determine the extent of reduction that is warranted under the circumstances. That determination could plausibly involve a consideration of the benefits derived from reductions and the costs of achieving them.
* * * [Under other Clean Water Act provisions that impose standards on sources of pollution,] the EPA is instructed to consider, among other factors, “the total cost of application of technology in relation to the * * * benefits to be achieved.”
* * * *
This * * * comparison of * * * statutory factors * * * leads us to the conclusion that it was well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation for the EPA to conclude that cost-benefit analysis is not categorically forbidden.
* * * *
While not conclusive, it surely tends to show that the EPA’s current practice is a reasonable and hence legitimate exercise of its discretion to weigh benefits against costs that the agency has been proceeding in essentially this fashion for over 30 years.
Questions:
Ethical:In this case, aquatic organisms were most directly at risk. Is it acceptable to apply cost-benefit analyses to situations in which the lives of people are directly affected? Explain.
Global:In analyzing the costs and benefits of an action that affects the environment, should a line be drawn at a nation’s borders? Why or why not?