HEADING:
Include the following at the top of your assignment
Name:
Case Analysis #2
Word Count: #____
Upload your written assignment to the D2L drop box along with highlighted copies of the three orders you analyze in your paper.
PURPOSE:
This assignment is designed to build off your prior work in which you closely-read and analyzed one legal opinion. For this assignment, I want you to explore a particular legal concept by analyzing three legal opinions.
INSTRUCTIONS:
First identify, save, read and analyze a leading court opinion on a particular legal issue. Use the library’s Lexis Uni to pull the opinion. You can choose one of the primary opinions identified in the textbook (mostly included in the footnotes) or any of the cases identified on the list of cases provided in D2L (see Content Tab, Paper Assignment Tab, “Cases from the Book for Case Analysis Papers”). Make sure to highlight the key passages and save the cases because you will need to upload them with your final paper.
Second, identify, save, read and analyze two additional cases that are cited in or cited by your primary court opinion on the legal issue. These cases should address the same specific legal issue and will often share a similar LexisNexis Headnote. If you are using Lexis Uni, you can use the links in the document to jump to the similar cases. Again, highlight the key passages.
Third, write a paper that does the following:
1. Citations: Provide the full Blue Book citation for the three case.
2. Issue or Rule: State and explain the primary legal concept or rule addressed in all three of the cases.
3. Summary and Analysis: Briefly summarize the facts of each of the cases and explain how those cases applied the legal concept or rule. You will be graded on your ability to use the three cases to explain the nuances of the legal concept or rule, or how courts are applying the rule to similar or different fact patterns.
4. Conclusions / Lessons: Discuss what can be learned from the three cases.
5. Your Response: Explain your reaction to the cases. Do you agree or disagree with the rule as it is applied? How does your research inform our class?
GRADING RUBRIC
• Quality of Explanation and Analysis. Does the paper capture the primary legal issue and findings across the three cases? Does the paper identify the essential facts without including extraneous facts? Is the analysis thoughtful and helpful? Does the paper explain the relevance of the matter to the course content?
• Writing Quality. Is the paper well written? Is the tone and presentation professional and credible? Does the writer use proper sentence structure, grammar, spelling and mechanics? Does the writer have a strong, credible voice?
• Citations and Sources. Are the citations proper and accurate?
• Length. Is the paper the required length?
• Original Work. Papers will be checked against Turnitin.com to review for plagiarism or improper citation.
Outstanding
27-30 Very Good
24-27 Satisfactory / Good
21-24 Needs Improvement
18-21 Does Not Meet Requirements
<18 CASE ANALYSIS PAPER – COURT DECISIONS CH. 2 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS 3. Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, 808 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2011) 5. Castaways Family Diner, 453 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2006) 6. Reyes v. Remington Hybrid Seed Company, 495 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2007) CH. 3 DISCRIMINATION 1. Douglas v. Preston, 559 F.3d 549 (D.C. Cir. 2009) 2. EEOC v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations, 537 Fed. Appx. 437 (5th Cir. 2013) 3. Simmons v. Sykes Enterprises, 647 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2011) 4. Johnson v. AK Steel, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41573 (S.D. Ohio 2008) CH. 3 RETALIATION & REPRISAL 6. Gallina v. Mintz Levin, 123 Fed. Appx. 558 (4th Cir. 2005)). 7. Wallace v. DTG Operations, 442 F.3d 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) CH. 5 BACKGROUND CHECKS, REFERENCES AND VERIFYING ELIGIBILITY p. 169 Sweet, et al. v. LinkedIn Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49767 (N.D. Cal.). 2. M.P. v. City of Sacramento, 177 Cal. App. 4th 121, review denied, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 11669 (3d App. Dist. 2009) 3. D.D.N. v. FACE, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 244; review denied, 2010 Minn. LEXIS 324 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) 7. Black v. Usher Transport, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32775 (S.D.Ohio 2011) CH. 7 BFOQ / STEREOTYPING p. 236 EEOC v. Exxon Mobil, 560 Fed. Appx. 282 (5th Cir. 2014) p. 252 EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016) 1. EEOC v. HI 40 Corp., 953 F.Supp. 301 (W.D. Mo. 1996) 2. EEOC v. Catholic Healthcare West, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2008) 5. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp.2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008) 6. Jespersen v. Harrah’s, 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) CH. 4 RECRUITMENT p. 116 Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3707 (E.D. Ark. 2009) p. 147 Sweeney v. MARC Global, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11490 (W.D.N.C. 2008) 1. EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crab, 220 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 941 (2006) 3. Smiarowski v. Philip Morris USA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13299 (S.D.N.Y.); cert. denied, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 7546 CH. 5 BACKGROUND CHECKS / NEGLIGENT HIRING & SUPERVISION p. 160 Keen v. Miller Environmental Group, 702 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2012) 1. Twardy v. Northwest Airlines, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2112 2. M.P. v. City of Sacramento, 177 Cal. App. 4th 121 (3d App. Dist. 2009), review denied, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 11669) 3. D.D.N. v. FACE, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 244; review denied, 2010 Minn. LEXIS 324 4. Munroe v. Universal Health Services, 596 S.E.2d 604 (Ga. 2004) 7. Black v. Usher Transport, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32775 (S.D.Ohio) CH. 9 HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT p. 298 McCafferty v. Preiss Enterprises, 534 Fed. Appx. 726 (10th Cir. 2013) 1. Smith v. Hy-Vee, 622 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 2010) 2. Parrish v. Sollecito, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2225 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 3. Hoyle v. Freightliner, 650 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2011) 4. EEOC v. Fairbrook Medical Clinic, P.A., 609 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2010) 5. Singleton v. Department of Correctional Education, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24059 (4th Cir. 2004) 6. Speedway America v. Dupont, 933 So.2d 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) 7. Miles v. DDF, Inc. 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 524; review denied, 2004 Minn. LEXIS 409 9. Nievaard v. City of Ann Arbor, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3690 (6th Cir. 2005) CH. 10 DISABILITY P. 356 Ekstrand v. School District of Somerset, 583 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2009) 1. Colwell v. Rite Aid, 602 F.3d 495 (3d Cir. 2010) 2. Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) 3. Lizotte v. Dacotah Bank, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1223 (D.N.D. 2010) 4. Burns v. Coca-Cola, 222 F.3d 247 (6th Cir. 2000) 5. EEOC v. Convergys Customer Service Group, 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007) 6. McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) CH. 10 RELIGION 9. Winspear v. Community Development, 574 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2009) 10. EEOC v. Robert Bosch Corp., 169 Fed. Appx. 942 (6th Cir. 2006) 11. Ambrose v. Gabay Ent & Associates, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115353 (E.D. Pa. 2013) 14. Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12417 (S.D. Ohio 2013) CH. 11 FMLA p. 386 Jones v. C&D Technologies, 684 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2012) 1. Reynolds v. Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4686 (N.D. Ill. 2009) 2. Phillips v. Quebecor World RAI Inc., 450 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2006) 3. Hoge v. Honda of America Mfg., 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2004) 6. Baham v. McLane Foodservice, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13620 (5th Cir. 2011) CH. 12 WAGE AND HOUR 3. Pabst v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric, 228 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2000) 4. Singh v. New York City, 524 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2008) 5. Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction, 487 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2007) 6. Bothell v. Phase Metrics, 299 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2002) 7. Chatfield v. Children’s Services, 555 F.Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Pa. 2008) CH. 17 PRIVACY P. 636 Hernandez v. Hillsides, 47 Cal. 4th 272 (Cal. App. Ct. 2009) P. 651 Lazette v. Kulmatycki, 949 F. Supp. 2d 748 (N.D. Ohio 2013) 2. Helisek v. Dearborn Public Schools, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25514 (E.D. Mich. 2008) 5. Schmidt v. Ameritech, 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 220 (Ill. Ct. App. 2002) CH. 18 WHISTLEBLOWER 7. Day v. Staples, 555 F.3d 42 [1st Cir. 2009]) 8. Rodrigues v. EG Systems, 639 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2009) 9. Kavanagh v. C.D.S. Office Systems, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1592 (C.D. Ill. 2014) 11. Bryson v. Regis Hairstylists, 498 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2007) CH. 19 NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS 10. Estee Lauder v. Batra, 430 F. Supp.2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 11. Jacono v. Invacare, 2006 Ohio 1596 (8th App. Dist. 2006)