...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...
Words: 805 - Pages: 4
...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 USERRA...
Words: 466 - Pages: 2
...Petty v Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Kathryn Wilcher Dr. ZELPHIA BROWN HRM510 02/3/13 What were the legal issues in this case? In Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, the legal issue was about whether the employee had been honest and telling the truth on why he was discharged as an employee. Even though there are rules in place or acts in place when reemploying a returning Army employee, there are certain rules that have to be followed. Because certain rules in regards to postponement were not followed, this violated, the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act or (USERRA), even though the delay was based on the employee’s alleged dishonesty. Explain how the reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case. The USERRA is in place to protect the rights of returning veterans when seeking re-employment upon return from service (Judicial Review, 2008). The reemployment provisions of the USERRA were violated in this case because Metro delayed re-hiring Petty by putting him through the return-to-work process. The department was also in violation because he was not given the position to which he was qualified. Explain why the court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA. The court concludes that Petty has a claim for discrimination under USERRA because he had satisfied the stipulations for reinstatement—his petition for re-employment was timely...
Words: 346 - Pages: 2
...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 summary...
Words: 487 - Pages: 2
...Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County Business Employment Law-HRM 510 May 11, 2014 Abstract This paper addresses issues brought before the court in which Brian Petty, former police officer brought suit against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for violations under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 1. What were the legal issues in this case? The legal issues in Petty v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County are that whether or not Brian Petty, the plaintiff and former police officer in this case, was truthful about the reason why he was discharged from the Army and why Metro delayed his re-employment after he returned from his mobilization with the Army, which were in violation of USERRA. First, Petty contends that Metro failed to restore him to his previous position of a patrol sergeant, which was in violation of the reemployment provisions of USERRA § 4312 and 4313. Second, Petty asserts that Metro discriminated against him because of his service with the Army, which was in violation of the discrimination provision of USERRA § 4311. In the first issue, § 4313 states the following in part: “in the case of a person whose period of service in the uniformed services was for more than 90 days - (A) in the position of employment in which the person would have been employed if the continuous employment of such person with the employer had not been interrupted...
Words: 1372 - Pages: 6
...Week 3 Homework Assignment for Chapters 9, 10 and 11 Chapter 9 Hardage v. CBS 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? In the summer of 1998, Hardage began working as an advertising account executive for KSTW-TV, a television station owned by Viacom Television Stations, Inc. and managed by CBS Broadcasting Inc. He was promoted to Local Sales Manager in February of 2000, and in this position, he worked with another Local Sales Manager, Nadene Stauffer, to manage and supervise the account executives. Patty Dean, the General Sales Manager, who was in turn supervised by defendant Sparks, the station’s General Manager, supervised both Hardage and Stauffer. Until about a month before Hardage resigned in August of 2001, he worked in the Seattle sales office whereas Sparks worked in the management office in Tacoma. Hardage contends he was sexually harassed by Sparks on several occasions and subjected to retaliation after he rejected her advances. He alleges that during Sparks' visits to the Seattle office, she repeatedly flirted with him and made inappropriate comments-such as “[y]ou need somebody that's older and more stable that can take care of you.” Leo Elbert, another employee at KSTW, stated that Sparks would “camp out” in Hardage's office, kick back in his chair with her feet on his desk, and smile and giggle in a flirtatious manner. Hardage asserts that he never flirted...
Words: 4191 - Pages: 17
