Hrpetty V. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

In: Other Topics

Submitted By Tmharvey2004
Words 805
Pages 4
Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

Strayer University

Professor Jama Rand, PhD, SP

HRM510 Business Employment Law

August 7, 2011

What was the legal issue in this case? In Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, the legal issue was about whether the employee had been truthful about the reasons for his discharge from service. Another issue in the case was in regards to the postponement in re-employing a returning Army reservist, which violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), although the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty (Walsh, 2010). The US government has taken numerous steps to ensure that the employers to not discriminate when hiring, promoting or firing employees. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) employers cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Metro re-hired Petty but did not return him to his previous position of patrol sergeant or a substantially similar position. Petty was relegated to answering phone calls and occasionally taking police reports (Walsh, 2010). Metro’s Office of Professional Accountability conducted an investigation into whether Petty lied on his return-to-work paperwork by admitting that he faced military charges in Kuwait, but did not disclose that he was accused of giving alcohol to an enlisted soldier and of manufacturing alcohol. This investigation was closed after a lieutenant met with Petty and concluded that any allegation that Petty was untruthful on his paperwork was unfounded (Walsh, 2010).
Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case. The central dispute in this case is whether Metro violated USERRA in its treatment of Petty, a former police officer who left the…...

Similar Documents

Davis V. the Board of County Commissioners of Dana Ana County

...Davis v. the Board of County Commissioners of Dana Ana County Patty Turner Dr. John Loblack HRM510 Business Employment Law 11/01/2012 Davis v. the Board of County Commissioners of Dana Ana County This case explores the fundamental legal issue of negligent referrals or misrepresentations of facts that an employer provides regarding a previous employee. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding the matter are: What if provided references are misleading? Can an employer be sued for exercising negligence in referring an unfit employee who harms or show foreseeable possibilities of causing harm on a new job? Who bestows the duty of care? What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in the case of Davis v the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County involved the misrepresenting of referral information of a previous employee, Joseph Herrera. Herrera was a detention officer at the Dona Ana County Detention Center who was disciplined for having improper sexual interaction with female prison inmates. In spite of these unprofessional issues, Herrera’s supervisor, Frank Steele, gave him an outstanding reference; a reference that helped him secure another position at another institution. In addition to Steele’s excellent letter of reference, Herrera received a positive verbal recommendation from another supervisor, Mochen. Unfortunately, Herrera did not live up to the positive referrals he received......

Words: 995 - Pages: 4

Harley-Davidson, Inc. V Grottanelli

...Running head: Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli Park University HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. v. GROTTANELLI 91 F.Supp.2d 544 (2000) HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., Plaintiff, v. Ronald GROTTANELLI, d/b/a The Hog Farm, Defendant. No. 93-CV-144M. United States District Court, W.D. New York. March 24, 2000. Michael, Best & Friedrich, Dyann L. Kostello, Milwaukee, WI, for plaintiff. Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Peter K. Sommer, Buffalo, NY, for defendant. Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli Harley-Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli was heard before the court in October 21 through 24, 1996. A decision and order was entered March 20, 1997 in which it was found that the defendant was entitled to use the term “Hog Farm” in regards to the conduct of its business. Harley-Davidson, Inc. was entitled to a permanent injunction with respect to its “Bar and Shield” and “Hog” trademarks. On April 9, 1997, the defendant moved to amend the courts findings and to amend the order from March 20, 1997. In addition, the defendant moved to amend the pleadings to conform with the evidence and for entry of judgment in his favor. In a judgment filed October 1, 1997, the court denied the motions and enjoined his use of the plaintiff’s “Bar and Shield” and “Hog” trademarks. The parties then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit were the court upheld the judgment as to the “Bar and Shield” trademarks, but reversed...

Words: 713 - Pages: 3

David V. the Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County

...David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County HRM 510/Business Employment Law April 28, 2014 David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County In the case of David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County, the Mexico Supreme Court of Appeals held that when any employer chooses to provide an employment recommendation, the employer has a duty to not make negligent misrepresentation of current or past employee’s record when there is foreseeable potential risk of physical harm to the third party by the employee. In this case Joseph Herrera, an employee at the detention center was accused of sexually harassing the female inmates. Herrera’s supervisor at MVH where he was employed, advise Herrera that they will taking actions to discipline him due to the complaints and Herrera resigns. Herrera asks his employers to give him a letter of recommendation for an employer he was applying for and the supervisors give him an outstanding recommendation. His supervisors neglect to tell the prospective employer, that at the time of his employment, he was under investigation for sexual harassment. Because they did not disclose that information they employed Herrera and he repeated his actions. What was the legal issue in this case? There are two legal issues in question in the case of David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County. The issues in question are whether the employers feel the need to talk, and the employers......

Words: 956 - Pages: 4

David V. the Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County

...David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County April 28, 2014 David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County In the case of David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County, the Mexico Supreme Court of Appeals held that when any employer chooses to provide an employment recommendation, the employer has a duty to not make negligent misrepresentation of current or past employee’s record when there is foreseeable potential risk of physical harm to the third party by the employee. In this case Joseph Herrera, an employee at the detention center was accused of sexually harassing the female inmates. Herrera’s supervisor at MVH where he was employed, advise Herrera that they will taking actions to discipline him due to the complaints and Herrera resigns. Herrera asks his employers to give him a letter of recommendation for an employer he was applying for and the supervisors give him an outstanding recommendation. His supervisors neglect to tell the prospective employer, that at the time of his employment, he was under investigation for sexual harassment. Because they did not disclose that information they employed Herrera and he repeated his actions. What was the legal issue in this case? There are two legal issues in question in the case of David v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County. The issues in question are whether the employers feel the need to talk, and the employers choosing to recommend employees owe......

Words: 951 - Pages: 4

Petty V. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County

...Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 provides employment protection to National Guard and Reserve military personnel. This legislation protects military veterans and reservists' rights with respect to their civilian jobs and benefits, and outlines employee, and employer responsibilities. (Lundin, p. 20). The law also requires employers to refrain from discrimination in hiring, re-employment and benefits because of an employee's military service or connection (Lundin, p. 20). In the case of Petty v. Metropolitan Government the company was accused of violating this legislation. 1. What were the legal issues of this case? The legal issue of this case of Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County is the alleging of racial discrimination under disparate treatment and disparate impact. Another issue in the case is the postponement of re-employing a returning Army reservist, which violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994, although the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty (Walsh, 2010). In Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, Metro re-hired Petty but did not return him to his previous position of patrol sergeant. Petty was demoted to answering phone calls and occasionally taking police reports......

Words: 934 - Pages: 4

Cloutier V. Costco Wholesale Corp.

...Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp. In this case Kimberly Cloutier worked as a cashier for Costco. In March 2001, Costco revised its dress code to prohibit all facial jewelry, aside from earrings. Cloutier was advised to remove facial piercings. Cloutier refused because she is a member of the Church of Body Modification (CBM), which was established in 1999 and has about 1,000 members who participate in such practices as piercing, tattooing, branding, cutting, and body manipulation. Eventually, Cloutier was fired. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis that Costco had offered a reasonable accommodation. But the First Circuit decides to uphold the grant of summary judgment on other grounds. The only accommodation that Cloutier will accept is exemption from the dress code. The First Circuit holds that Costco had no duty to offer a reasonable accommodation because doing so would create an undue hardship. An accommodation constitutes an undue hardship if it would impose more than a de minimis cost on the employer. The undue hardship claimed by Costco is that it has a legitimate interest in presenting a workforce to its customers that is, at least in Costco's eyes, reasonably professional in appearance. Costco has determined that facial piercings, aside from earrings, detract from the "neat, clean and professional image" that it aims to cultivate. Such a business determination is within its discretion. For similar reasons, the Court also upholds the grant of......

Words: 487 - Pages: 2

Davis V. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County

...Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County  January 23, 2011 1. What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in the case of Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County involved acts of ill-will which could have been avoided. While employed as a detention officer at the Dona Ana County Detention Center, Joseph Herrera, was accused of unsuitable sexual behavior with female prison inmates and of exchanging favors for sex acts. Herrera’s supervisor, Frank Steele, investigated the charges and advised Herrera that he would be reprimanded. Herrera resigned to avoid disciplinary action. Six days later, Steele wrote a recommendation letter on Herrera’s behalf that portrayed him as an “excellent employee” and told prospective employers: “I am confident that you would find [Herrera] to be an excellent employee.” (Walsh, 2010, p.149). Also, constructive verbal references were made by another Detention Center supervisor. Plaintiff sued the County for negligent misrepresentation alleging that the misinformation provided by the Detention Center employees, Steele and Mochen, actually caused Herrera to be hired at MVH and Plaintiff to be assaulted. 2. Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? The court concludes that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation) because of the positive references. Herrera acquired a......

Words: 808 - Pages: 4

Davis V. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County 1

...Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Wanda Pennywell Professor Jama Rand HRM 510 July 16, 2011 Abstract In this paper I will discuss the case of Davis v. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County. In this case Joseph Herrera an employee at the detention center was accused of sexually harassing the female inmates. Herrera’s supervisor at MVH where he was employed, advise Herrera that they will taking actions to discipline him due to the complaints and Herrera resigns. Herrera asks his employers to give him a letter of recommendation for an employer he was applying for and the supervisors give him an outstanding recommendation. His supervisors neglect to tell the prospective employer that at the time of his employment he was under investigation for sexual harassment. Because they did not disclose that information they employed Herrera and he repeated his actions. 1. What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in this case is whether or not the Doña Ana County Detention Center was responsible for the actions of Joseph Herrera. While working for the Doña Ana County Detention Center, Herrera was under investigation for sexually harassing various females in the detention center. The sexual harassment claims involved sexual statements and comments, requesting to have sexual relations with the inmates and in some cases receiving sex from the inmates in return for assisting them with various different things. The...

Words: 1106 - Pages: 5

Davis V. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County

...What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in the case of Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County involves whether a person making a recommendation to a prospective employer of another is bound by the actions of the said employee. The case involves a positive, but inaccurate, recommendation of Joseph “Tinie” Herrera as an employee of high character and standards. Herrera had previously been employed at the Dona Ana County Detention Center where his conduct had been under question. He had been under investigation for using his authority as detention sergeant and classification officer to sexually harass female inmates at the detention center. Herrera was accused, in a report authored by Steele, of using his authority over the girls to get sex in exchange for personal favors for them. As Herrera’s immediate supervisor, part of Steele’s job included recommending discipline. His choice would include suspension without pay, demotion in rank, and a possible reassignment away from his accusers. Herrera was informed by Steele on April 5, 1994 that on April 12 he would make these recommendations. Herra resigned before the recommended punishment could take place. However, six days after the resignation, Steele wrote a very impressive, but inaccurate, recommendation to a perspective employer of Herrea. In the letter, he stated how Herrera implemented social programs for the inmates with “imagination and imagination.” (Walsh, 2010) He went...

Words: 630 - Pages: 3

Harley-Davidson, Inc. V Grottanelli

...Harley Davidson Case Study 1. 1. Building Brand Community on the GROUP 4   Harley-Davidson Posse Ride Prepared for: MMA035, Dr. Csilla Horváth Prepared by: E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet December 10, 2009 Case Study 2. 2. Building Brand Community on the Harley-Davidson Posse Ride 1. What are the benefits of long rides as Posse, for customers of Harley Davidson (HD)? Evaluate the relational effects based on Exhibits 7 and 10, which refer to pre and post evaluations. For any Harley Davidson customer, long rides – such as the Posse – hold some clear benefits. Firstly, each participant is given the chance to discover part of the USA. The long rides explore the country in depth and give participants the chance to explore various landscapes, hidden parts of the USA or legendary roads, thus broadening their horizons. Secondly, HD customers come into contact with people sharing the same passion for HD, riding bikes and adventure, turning such rides into social gatherings for Harley enthusiasts. Furthermore, the rides offer customers the thrills and excitement associated with biking over long distances, with unpredictable weather conditions, changing sceneries, road mishaps and great road stories. The customers see these trips as big American adventures, a change from the daily routine and a way of experiencing complete freedom. A more tangible benefit is that participants of this sort of rides have the chance to pride themselves of having......

Words: 4444 - Pages: 18

Petty vs Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville

...Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County Strayer University Business Employment Law HRM 510 November 07, 2011 Petty v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County What were the legal issues of this case? The legal issues of this case are the employee is filing suit alleging racial discrimination under disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment is intentional unequal treatment based on protected class characteristics that results in the limitation or denial of employment opportunity. Employer of any size prohibited from discrimination against people who are members of, or have obligations to serve in a uniform military service under the uniformed services Employment and Reemployment rights Act ( USERRA). Explain how the r reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case? Under the provisions of USERRA reemployment must occur within two weeks of the employee’s application for reemployment. However, Metro return-to-work process took three weeks to rehire. Petty’s complaint alleged that Metro violated his rights under USERRA in that: (1) Metro delayed rehiring him for the purpose of subjecting to the department return-to-work process; (2) Metro did not properly rehire him because he was not placed in the position to which he was entitled; (3) Metro impermissibly denied him the ability to work off duty security jobs. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under......

Words: 466 - Pages: 2

Petty V Metropolitan Government

...Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County HRM 510: Business Employment Law Dr. Moore May 15, 2011 The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 provide employment protection of National Guard and Reserve military personnel. This legislation protects military veterans and reservists' rights with respect to their civilian jobs and benefits, and outlines employee, and employer responsibilities as well (Lundin, p. 20). Additionally, the law requires employers to refrain from discrimination in hiring, re-employment and benefits because of an employee's military service or connection (Lundin, p. 20). Although the USERRA has been effective in protecting the employed military member, it requires some work in the area of hiring new employees. Simply because of their military status, many qualified job applicants are often passed-over, it is an unlawful practice but very hard to prove by the Reserve/Guard member. Simply put, there are thousands of veterans unable to secure employment because it is too easy for the employers to select other non-military recruits. In the case of Petty v. Metropolitan Government the company was accused of violating this legislation. 1. What were the legal issues in this case? The legal issues in this case involved the treatments of Petty, a former Police Officer who left the Metro Police Department for active duty with the United States Army. Upon his request to be reinstatement,......

Words: 1464 - Pages: 6

Johnson V. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County

...Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County 1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide? Why? The issue being considered was if the Transportation Agency violated the Civil Rights of Johnson (a male employee) by selecting Joyce (a female employee) for a promotion when gender was a contributing factor in the selection process. The review board recommended Johnson for the position but Joyce was awarded the position by the selecting official as part of a documented Affirmative Action plan. Johnson maintained that his rights were violated because Joyce’s gender was a contributing factor to the selection process, and because he was the most favored candidate the position should have been awarded to him (Walsh, 2010). 2. What does this case reveal about the conditions under which affirmative action is legal? This case shows that affirmative action is legal when several factors are in place. Affirmative actions must be conducted with the intent of correcting an imbalance in the workforce that was created by “Old patterns.” Because the goal in hiring the top female applicant was to help correct just such an imbalance, the action is legal. Additional factors that must also be in place include, a documented affirmative action plan, the plan must not authorize blind hiring of individuals that are not qualified based on factors within the plan. The plan must not bar advancement of qualified individuals that do not fall within the...

Words: 610 - Pages: 3

Davis V. the Board of County Commissioner of Doña Ana County

...Assignment #1 – Davis v. The Board of County Commissioner of Doña Ana County Lisa Auvil January 22, 2012 Business Employment Law - HRM 510 Dr. Zelphia A. Brown, SPHR, Instructor Assignment #1 – Davis v. The Board of County Commissioner of Doña Ana County 1. What is the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in this case is negligent referral (Walsh p 148). Negligent referral is when a former employer gives a positive recommendation that leads to half-truths with regards to the character of a former employee. Liability may be imposed if the referral leads to foreseeable and considerable risk or harm to a third party (McCord 1999). Mesilla Valley Hospital (MVH), a psychiatric hospital in Doña Ana County hired Joseph Herrera (Herrera) as a mental health technician on January 20, 1995. Prior to his employment with MVH Herrera was a detention sergeant and classification officer at Doña Ana County Detention Center (Detention Center). According to the plaintiff Herrera was hired by MVH based on the unqualified favorable recommendations from his former Detention Center Supervisors Frank Steele and Al Mochen. The accuracy of these recommendations is the crux of the Plaintiff’s suit against the County ("Davis v. the," 1999). 2. Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? While employed at the Detention Center in 1993 a female inmate alleged that Herrera had sexually harassed......

Words: 792 - Pages: 4

Davis V. Dona County

...Davis vs. Doña Ana County 2 What was the legal issue in this case? There are three legal issues in this case that were found, which are negligent hiring, negligent referral and foreseeability. Negligent hiring is defined as “it extends the liability of employers for harm caused by their employees beyond actions undertaken within the scope of employment to harmful actions that lie outside the scope of employment” (Walsh, 2010, p.132). Even though Mesilla Valley Hospital is not being sued, they exercised negligence in hiring Herrera because they failed to do more extensive research when looking to hire Herrera, instead of going off of a basic recommendation letter. I believe that in certain work environments that involve the care for others, the patients have a due diligence that is owed to them that they will always be protected and cared for by their caretakers. Herrera took advantage of not only Davis, but also the inmates in Doña Ana County, which unfortunately can ruin the victim’s lives. As stated in the textbook, negligent referral is defined as “a former employer’s misrepresentation about an employee in giving a reference…” (Walsh, 2010, p.677). Frank Steele, Doña Ana County’s director blatantly showed negligence when after scheduling a hearing for Herrera’s behavior and Herrera resigning, he submitted a recommendation letter on behalf of Herrera giving nothing but praise to his work ethics. The final legal issue is......

Words: 1028 - Pages: 5