This memorandum supports Roger's Building Supply's motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination case. The plaintiff, Van Perrine, alleges Roger's failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA by not reassigning him to a vacant position over a more qualified candidate after a workplace injury left him disabled. The memorandum argues that: (1) the ADA does not require preferential treatment or reassignment over better qualified applicants; (2) the legislative intent was not to mandate preferential hiring; and (3) public policy supports hiring the best candidate to promote fairness. Roger's provided Perrine other positions and satisfied its ADA obligations. The court should grant summary judgment for Roger's as a matter of law.
Developing a Severance Outplacement Strategy - Ogletree DeakinsCareerminds
What are your expectations when you decide to pay severance to a terminated employee?
How close can you get to your expectations?
Title VII, Equal Pay Act, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, Section 1981, ERISA, WARN Act
- knowing and voluntary test
- totality of the circumstances
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974).
Daniel P. O’Gorman, A State of Disarray: The “Knowing and Voluntary” Standard for Releasing Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 73 (2005).
Thesis: While an agreement to release Title VII claims might not require the application of the objective theory of contracts like a contract in a commercial transaction, it also does not require application of the “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” constitutional waiver standard.
Craig Robert Senn, Knowing and Voluntary Waivers of Federal Employment Claims: Replacing the Totality of Circumstances Test with a “Waiver Certainty” Test, 58 Fla. L. Rev. 305 (2006).
Thesis: Due to the totality test’s shortcomings and problematic consequences for employers, employees, and the courts, a new and reformed analysis is needed to determine whether a waiver of non-ADEA federal employment claims is knowing and voluntary.
Developing a Severance Outplacement Strategy - Ogletree DeakinsCareerminds
What are your expectations when you decide to pay severance to a terminated employee?
How close can you get to your expectations?
Title VII, Equal Pay Act, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, Section 1981, ERISA, WARN Act
- knowing and voluntary test
- totality of the circumstances
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974).
Daniel P. O’Gorman, A State of Disarray: The “Knowing and Voluntary” Standard for Releasing Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 8 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 73 (2005).
Thesis: While an agreement to release Title VII claims might not require the application of the objective theory of contracts like a contract in a commercial transaction, it also does not require application of the “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” constitutional waiver standard.
Craig Robert Senn, Knowing and Voluntary Waivers of Federal Employment Claims: Replacing the Totality of Circumstances Test with a “Waiver Certainty” Test, 58 Fla. L. Rev. 305 (2006).
Thesis: Due to the totality test’s shortcomings and problematic consequences for employers, employees, and the courts, a new and reformed analysis is needed to determine whether a waiver of non-ADEA federal employment claims is knowing and voluntary.
Employment & Labor Law Update
Presented by Dan O’Toole & Larry Tucker
In this session, learn about updates to federal Missouri and Kansas employment laws and cases
The National Labor Relations Board & Department of Labor in 2014
Presented by John Vering
Learn how the NLRB and Department of Labor continue to wind their way down the road of increased regulation for employers.
An Update on the Affordable Care Act & Employee Benefits
Presented by Jonathan Igoe
In this session, learn about how the Affordable Care Act affects you and your employees and hear about other updates to employee benefits law.
Distracted Driving
Presented by Shelley Ericsson
In this session, learn how plaintiff's lawyers are ramping up litigation efforts against employers whose employees cause accidents due to distracted driving; this includes accidents arising from talking, texting, and even hands-free usage of a cell phone while in the course of employment. Plus, find out how you can best protect your company from liability in these types of cases.
The EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
Presented by Dione Greene
In this session find out about the EEOC’s strategy to enforce anti-discrimination laws against employers in the new year.
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elabora.docxrusselldayna
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain. I choose p>81
Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House, p. 81)
Read about arbitration law in Chapter 4 and Case 4-3 in your textbook, and do some online research on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then discuss the following:
What is the EEOC’s role in regard to business? Does the court say that the EEOC trumps the arbitration contract between the employee and the employer? If so, why? What are the pros and cons of arbitration agreements? Do you think arbitration agreements between big companies and low wage earners who are uninformed about the law are truly fair? If you have any experiences at work with discrimination policies or EEOC trainings, share those experiences.
Dogs and Dream Therapists (Hagen v. Field, pp. 65 (question 7), and Jones v. Williams, p. 43 (question 9)
P65
The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the two breeding cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas.
Read both cases and discuss legal issues for the court, focusing on in each. Summarize what factors the court looks at in determining where a case can be brought. What was the decision in each case, and do you think the decision was correct? Why or why not?
ASE
4-3 p81
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
All employees of Waffle House had to sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After Eric Baker suffered a seizure and was fired by Waffle House, he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) under Title VII. The EEOC subsequently filed an enforcement suit, to which Baker was not a party, alleging that Waffle House's employment practices, including Baker's discharge “because of his disability,” violated the ADA. The EEOC sought the following: an injunction to “eradicate the effects of [Waffle House's] past and present unlawful employment practices”; specific relief designed to make Baker whole, including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages; and punitive damages.
Waffle House sought to dismiss the EEOC's suit and compel arbitration because of the binding arbitration clause signed by Baker. The District Court denied Waffle House's motion to dismiss. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the arbitration agreement between Baker and Waffle House did not foreclose ...
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docxchristalgrieg
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first argument that needs some modification and I put the color red and yellow it to illustrate
The second argument is developed by yellow color and needs to work in this argument
Argument
Pricewter house rule.
Explanation of the rule
Barabano case
What happened
The defendant violated the title VII when HIS questions to not hire Ms. Beck was motivated factor to not hire her:
1- The defendant questions were discriminatory because they were unrelated to unrelated to occupational qualification.
This case relates to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff after it was found that her gender played a key role in the employment decision process. Maureen E. Barbano v. Madison County 922 F.2d 139 (1990) also relates to this case after the court found out that by the defendant (Madison County) asking the plaintiff (Barbano) questions pertaining to how her husband would react in relation to her taking the job was found to be discriminatory and the court in favor of the plaintiff. Similarly to our case, Firstly, the issue of discrimination arises from the questions that plaintiff was subjected to answer by defendant the first being what her boyfriend would think of her working long hours at the firm and traveling with male attorneys. Secondly, she was asked whether she was planning on having children in the future and if so how would she manage professional and personal responsibilities. Mr. Herrera also stated that he loses at least one attorney each year to “the baby”. In essence, these questions are not in any way part of the interview criteria and more importantly they are discriminatory and unrelated to occupational qualification. However, more importantly, none of the other interviewers cited the derailment in defandent 's questioning as they neither stopped the plaintiff from answering nor did they ask her about her other qualifications. Hence, the interviewing process was entirely discriminatory
1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; SUMMARY case heir and citation, and You should write this in your own way and not copy the case, understanding the subject then write it in your own way and then put a citation from where you took this
or
2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin : SUMMARY case heir and citation, and You should write this in your own way and not copy the case ,understanding the subject then write it in your own way and then put a citation ...
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
School Law - Educational Law & Policies - Litigation Law - Privacy Law - Employment Law - Court Cases - Educational Leadership -William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.
School Law - Educational Law & Policies - Litigation Law - Privacy Law - Employment Law - Court Cases - Educational Leadership -William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
(Revised Summer, 2009)
William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis was inducted into the William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor, Graduate School, Prairie View A&M University – The Texas A&M University System. He was nominated by doctoral and master’s degree students.
Dr. Kritsonis Lectures at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England
In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning.
Dr. Kritsonis Recognized as Distinguished Alumnus
In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and Professional Studies. Dr. Kritsonis was nominated by alumni, former students, friends, faculty, and staff. Final selection was made by the Alumni Association Board of Directors. Recipients are CWU graduates of 20 years or more and are recognized for achievement in their professional field and have made a positive contribution to society. For the second consecutive year, U.S. News and World Report placed Central Washington University among the top elite public institutions in the west. CWU was 12th on the list in the 2006 On-Line Education of “America’s Best Colleges.”
Educational Background
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Doctor of Humane Letters
In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Professional Experience
Dr. Kritsonis began his career as a teacher. He has served education as a principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, invited guest professor, author, consultant, editor-in-chief, and publisher. Dr. Kritsonis has earned tenure as a professor at the highest academic rank at two major universities.
Books – Articles – Lectures - Workshops
Dr. Kritsonis lectures and conducts seminars and workshops on a variety of topics. He is author of more than 600 articles in professional journals and several books. His popular book SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: The Art of Survival is scheduled for its fourth edition. He is the author of the textbook William Kritsonis, PhD on Schooling that is used by many professors at colleges and universities throughout the nation and abroad.
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis coauthored the textbook A Statistical Journey: Taming of the Skew. The book has been adopted by professors in many colleges and universities throughout the nation. It was published by the Alexis/Austin Group, Murrieta, California.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis’ version of the book of Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning (858 pages) was published in the United States of America in cooperation with partial financial support of Visiting Lecturers, Oxford Round Table (2005). The book is the product of a collaborative twenty-four year effort started in 1978 with the late Dr. Philip H. Phenix. Dr. Kritsonis was in continuous communication with Dr. Phenix until his death in 2002.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis was the lead author of the textbook Practical Applications of Educational Research and Basic Statistics. The text provides practical content knowledge in research for graduate students at the doctoral and master’s levels.
In 2009, Dr. Kritsonis’ b
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA.docxjoyjonna282
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff
Against DECISION
ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
JANE JOHNSON,
PISSEDPRODUCER.COM, INC,
Defendants
------------------------------------------------------X
Haas, J.,
Defendant Jane Johnson (“Johnson”) lives in Portland, Oregon, and operates
defendant corporation, pissedproducer.com (the “website”). The website is devoted to
allowing service providers to complain about actions of consumers. According to the
website’s terms, business owners or service providers are allowed to post feedback about
consumers “that other producers should be wary of.” The website also allows aggrieved
producers to publish the names, addresses and other personal information about
consumers, along with audio and video files that relate to the transaction.
On June 12, YR-01, Brenda James (“James”) posted a story regarding plaintiff,
Douglas Smith (“Smith”) in which she accused him of, inter alia, lying about his
conversations with her, behaving antagonistically towards her and unjustifiably
complaining about her business. She also posted information about Smith’s name,
address and license plate number and a video that showed a confrontation between her
and Smith.
Johnson knowingly allowed this information to remain on her site in spite of
Smith’s protest.
2
Smith brought the present action against Johnson and the corporation that holds
the website alleging defamation, invasion of privacy for intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy for misappropriation of name and likeness and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all three defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) because plaintiff is a resident of California and defendants are residents of
Oregon and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. This is undisputed.
Johnson and the website have moved to dismiss the complaint based on FRCP
Rule 12(b)(2), alleging that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her and
under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
with respect to each of the four counts of the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, I deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to each count.
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Johnson and the
website because they operate exclusively in the state of Oregon and have insufficient
contacts with California to subject them to personal jurisdiction in the state of California.
Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, a state may exercise long arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with it s ...
CRM 123 – How to Brief a Case A case brief is a dissection.docxannettsparrow
CRM 123 – How to Brief a Case
A case brief is a dissection of a judicial opinion. It contains a written summary of the basic
components of that decision. Briefing a case helps you acquire the skills of case analysis and
legal reasoning. It also helps you understand it. Briefs help you remember cases for class
discussions and assignments. Learning law is a process of problem solving through legal
reasoning; case briefs, therefore, should not be memorized. Below are examples and
explanations of the components of a case brief.
1. Case Title and Citation
■ Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Services
(Plaintiff Nursing Home) v. (Defendant State Entity) 532 U.S. 598 (2001)
Case titles generally take on the names of the parties involved in the case. For example, in this
case Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources, Buckhannon Board is the party asking the Court to reverse a lower court’s
holding; W est Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources wants the Court to affirm
that holding.
A citation acts as the case’s “address.” There is a standard format for cases contained in the
United States Reports (abbreviated U.S. in case citations). Therefore, in this case, the citation is
532 U.S. 598. This means that this case is found on page 598 of the 532nd volume of the
United States Reports.
2. Procedural History
■ Procedural History
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the case and denial of
attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed. The procedural history (or posture) states how the
case got to the court that wrote the opinion that you are reading.
3. Facts
■ Facts
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. (“Buckhannon”), which operates care homes
that provide assisted living to its residents, failed an inspection by the W est Virginia Office of the
State Fire Marshall because some of the residents were incapable of “self-preservation” as
defined under state law. On October 28, 1997, after receiving cease and desist orders requiring
the closure of its residential care facilities within 30 days, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated homes and residents brought suit in federal district court against the state of
West Virginia, two of its agencies, and 18 individuals. Plaintiff agreed to stay enforcement of the
cease-and-desist orders pending resolution of the case and the parties began discovery. The
district court granted W est Virginia’s motion to dismiss, finding that the 1998 legislation had
eliminated the allegedly offensive provisions and that there was no indication that the
Legislature would repeal the amendments. Buckhannon then moved for attorney’s fees as the
prevailing party.
This section includes a brief overview of the relevant facts of the case that (a) describe the
dispute at hand and (b) have bro.
MISS TEEN GONDA 2024 - WINNER ABHA VISHWAKARMADK PAGEANT
Abha Vishwakarma, a rising star from Uttar Pradesh, has been selected as the victor from Gonda for Miss High Schooler India 2024. She is a glad representative of India, having won the title through her commitment and efforts in different talent competitions conducted by DK Exhibition, where she was crowned Miss Gonda 2024.
More Related Content
Similar to Lp paper argumentative brief rhetorical revision
Employment & Labor Law Update
Presented by Dan O’Toole & Larry Tucker
In this session, learn about updates to federal Missouri and Kansas employment laws and cases
The National Labor Relations Board & Department of Labor in 2014
Presented by John Vering
Learn how the NLRB and Department of Labor continue to wind their way down the road of increased regulation for employers.
An Update on the Affordable Care Act & Employee Benefits
Presented by Jonathan Igoe
In this session, learn about how the Affordable Care Act affects you and your employees and hear about other updates to employee benefits law.
Distracted Driving
Presented by Shelley Ericsson
In this session, learn how plaintiff's lawyers are ramping up litigation efforts against employers whose employees cause accidents due to distracted driving; this includes accidents arising from talking, texting, and even hands-free usage of a cell phone while in the course of employment. Plus, find out how you can best protect your company from liability in these types of cases.
The EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan
Presented by Dione Greene
In this session find out about the EEOC’s strategy to enforce anti-discrimination laws against employers in the new year.
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elabora.docxrusselldayna
Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain. I choose p>81
Waffles and Workers’ Rights (EEOC v. Waffle House, p. 81)
Read about arbitration law in Chapter 4 and Case 4-3 in your textbook, and do some online research on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Then discuss the following:
What is the EEOC’s role in regard to business? Does the court say that the EEOC trumps the arbitration contract between the employee and the employer? If so, why? What are the pros and cons of arbitration agreements? Do you think arbitration agreements between big companies and low wage earners who are uninformed about the law are truly fair? If you have any experiences at work with discrimination policies or EEOC trainings, share those experiences.
Dogs and Dream Therapists (Hagen v. Field, pp. 65 (question 7), and Jones v. Williams, p. 43 (question 9)
P65
The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plaintiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the two breeding cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas.
Read both cases and discuss legal issues for the court, focusing on in each. Summarize what factors the court looks at in determining where a case can be brought. What was the decision in each case, and do you think the decision was correct? Why or why not?
ASE
4-3 p81
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 534 U.S. 279 (2002)
All employees of Waffle House had to sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After Eric Baker suffered a seizure and was fired by Waffle House, he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) under Title VII. The EEOC subsequently filed an enforcement suit, to which Baker was not a party, alleging that Waffle House's employment practices, including Baker's discharge “because of his disability,” violated the ADA. The EEOC sought the following: an injunction to “eradicate the effects of [Waffle House's] past and present unlawful employment practices”; specific relief designed to make Baker whole, including back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages; and punitive damages.
Waffle House sought to dismiss the EEOC's suit and compel arbitration because of the binding arbitration clause signed by Baker. The District Court denied Waffle House's motion to dismiss. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the arbitration agreement between Baker and Waffle House did not foreclose ...
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first.docxchristalgrieg
This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first argument that needs some modification and I put the color red and yellow it to illustrate
The second argument is developed by yellow color and needs to work in this argument
Argument
Pricewter house rule.
Explanation of the rule
Barabano case
What happened
The defendant violated the title VII when HIS questions to not hire Ms. Beck was motivated factor to not hire her:
1- The defendant questions were discriminatory because they were unrelated to unrelated to occupational qualification.
This case relates to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff after it was found that her gender played a key role in the employment decision process. Maureen E. Barbano v. Madison County 922 F.2d 139 (1990) also relates to this case after the court found out that by the defendant (Madison County) asking the plaintiff (Barbano) questions pertaining to how her husband would react in relation to her taking the job was found to be discriminatory and the court in favor of the plaintiff. Similarly to our case, Firstly, the issue of discrimination arises from the questions that plaintiff was subjected to answer by defendant the first being what her boyfriend would think of her working long hours at the firm and traveling with male attorneys. Secondly, she was asked whether she was planning on having children in the future and if so how would she manage professional and personal responsibilities. Mr. Herrera also stated that he loses at least one attorney each year to “the baby”. In essence, these questions are not in any way part of the interview criteria and more importantly they are discriminatory and unrelated to occupational qualification. However, more importantly, none of the other interviewers cited the derailment in defandent 's questioning as they neither stopped the plaintiff from answering nor did they ask her about her other qualifications. Hence, the interviewing process was entirely discriminatory
1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; SUMMARY case heir and citation, and You should write this in your own way and not copy the case, understanding the subject then write it in your own way and then put a citation from where you took this
or
2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin : SUMMARY case heir and citation, and You should write this in your own way and not copy the case ,understanding the subject then write it in your own way and then put a citation ...
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
School Law - Educational Law & Policies - Litigation Law - Privacy Law - Employment Law - Court Cases - Educational Leadership -William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.
School Law - Educational Law & Policies - Litigation Law - Privacy Law - Employment Law - Court Cases - Educational Leadership -William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
(Revised Summer, 2009)
William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis was inducted into the William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor, Graduate School, Prairie View A&M University – The Texas A&M University System. He was nominated by doctoral and master’s degree students.
Dr. Kritsonis Lectures at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England
In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning.
Dr. Kritsonis Recognized as Distinguished Alumnus
In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and Professional Studies. Dr. Kritsonis was nominated by alumni, former students, friends, faculty, and staff. Final selection was made by the Alumni Association Board of Directors. Recipients are CWU graduates of 20 years or more and are recognized for achievement in their professional field and have made a positive contribution to society. For the second consecutive year, U.S. News and World Report placed Central Washington University among the top elite public institutions in the west. CWU was 12th on the list in the 2006 On-Line Education of “America’s Best Colleges.”
Educational Background
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Doctor of Humane Letters
In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Professional Experience
Dr. Kritsonis began his career as a teacher. He has served education as a principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, invited guest professor, author, consultant, editor-in-chief, and publisher. Dr. Kritsonis has earned tenure as a professor at the highest academic rank at two major universities.
Books – Articles – Lectures - Workshops
Dr. Kritsonis lectures and conducts seminars and workshops on a variety of topics. He is author of more than 600 articles in professional journals and several books. His popular book SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: The Art of Survival is scheduled for its fourth edition. He is the author of the textbook William Kritsonis, PhD on Schooling that is used by many professors at colleges and universities throughout the nation and abroad.
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis coauthored the textbook A Statistical Journey: Taming of the Skew. The book has been adopted by professors in many colleges and universities throughout the nation. It was published by the Alexis/Austin Group, Murrieta, California.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis’ version of the book of Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning (858 pages) was published in the United States of America in cooperation with partial financial support of Visiting Lecturers, Oxford Round Table (2005). The book is the product of a collaborative twenty-four year effort started in 1978 with the late Dr. Philip H. Phenix. Dr. Kritsonis was in continuous communication with Dr. Phenix until his death in 2002.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis was the lead author of the textbook Practical Applications of Educational Research and Basic Statistics. The text provides practical content knowledge in research for graduate students at the doctoral and master’s levels.
In 2009, Dr. Kritsonis’ b
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA.docxjoyjonna282
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------X
DOUGLAS SMITH,
Plaintiff
Against DECISION
ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
JANE JOHNSON,
PISSEDPRODUCER.COM, INC,
Defendants
------------------------------------------------------X
Haas, J.,
Defendant Jane Johnson (“Johnson”) lives in Portland, Oregon, and operates
defendant corporation, pissedproducer.com (the “website”). The website is devoted to
allowing service providers to complain about actions of consumers. According to the
website’s terms, business owners or service providers are allowed to post feedback about
consumers “that other producers should be wary of.” The website also allows aggrieved
producers to publish the names, addresses and other personal information about
consumers, along with audio and video files that relate to the transaction.
On June 12, YR-01, Brenda James (“James”) posted a story regarding plaintiff,
Douglas Smith (“Smith”) in which she accused him of, inter alia, lying about his
conversations with her, behaving antagonistically towards her and unjustifiably
complaining about her business. She also posted information about Smith’s name,
address and license plate number and a video that showed a confrontation between her
and Smith.
Johnson knowingly allowed this information to remain on her site in spite of
Smith’s protest.
2
Smith brought the present action against Johnson and the corporation that holds
the website alleging defamation, invasion of privacy for intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy for misappropriation of name and likeness and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all three defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) because plaintiff is a resident of California and defendants are residents of
Oregon and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. This is undisputed.
Johnson and the website have moved to dismiss the complaint based on FRCP
Rule 12(b)(2), alleging that this court does not have personal jurisdiction over her and
under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
with respect to each of the four counts of the complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, I deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to each count.
Personal Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Johnson and the
website because they operate exclusively in the state of Oregon and have insufficient
contacts with California to subject them to personal jurisdiction in the state of California.
Under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, a state may exercise long arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant
only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with it s ...
CRM 123 – How to Brief a Case A case brief is a dissection.docxannettsparrow
CRM 123 – How to Brief a Case
A case brief is a dissection of a judicial opinion. It contains a written summary of the basic
components of that decision. Briefing a case helps you acquire the skills of case analysis and
legal reasoning. It also helps you understand it. Briefs help you remember cases for class
discussions and assignments. Learning law is a process of problem solving through legal
reasoning; case briefs, therefore, should not be memorized. Below are examples and
explanations of the components of a case brief.
1. Case Title and Citation
■ Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Services
(Plaintiff Nursing Home) v. (Defendant State Entity) 532 U.S. 598 (2001)
Case titles generally take on the names of the parties involved in the case. For example, in this
case Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources, Buckhannon Board is the party asking the Court to reverse a lower court’s
holding; W est Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources wants the Court to affirm
that holding.
A citation acts as the case’s “address.” There is a standard format for cases contained in the
United States Reports (abbreviated U.S. in case citations). Therefore, in this case, the citation is
532 U.S. 598. This means that this case is found on page 598 of the 532nd volume of the
United States Reports.
2. Procedural History
■ Procedural History
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the case and denial of
attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed. The procedural history (or posture) states how the
case got to the court that wrote the opinion that you are reading.
3. Facts
■ Facts
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. (“Buckhannon”), which operates care homes
that provide assisted living to its residents, failed an inspection by the W est Virginia Office of the
State Fire Marshall because some of the residents were incapable of “self-preservation” as
defined under state law. On October 28, 1997, after receiving cease and desist orders requiring
the closure of its residential care facilities within 30 days, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated homes and residents brought suit in federal district court against the state of
West Virginia, two of its agencies, and 18 individuals. Plaintiff agreed to stay enforcement of the
cease-and-desist orders pending resolution of the case and the parties began discovery. The
district court granted W est Virginia’s motion to dismiss, finding that the 1998 legislation had
eliminated the allegedly offensive provisions and that there was no indication that the
Legislature would repeal the amendments. Buckhannon then moved for attorney’s fees as the
prevailing party.
This section includes a brief overview of the relevant facts of the case that (a) describe the
dispute at hand and (b) have bro.
MISS TEEN GONDA 2024 - WINNER ABHA VISHWAKARMADK PAGEANT
Abha Vishwakarma, a rising star from Uttar Pradesh, has been selected as the victor from Gonda for Miss High Schooler India 2024. She is a glad representative of India, having won the title through her commitment and efforts in different talent competitions conducted by DK Exhibition, where she was crowned Miss Gonda 2024.
Exploring Career Paths in Cybersecurity for Technical CommunicatorsBen Woelk, CISSP, CPTC
Brief overview of career options in cybersecurity for technical communicators. Includes discussion of my career path, certification options, NICE and NIST resources.
Leadership Ambassador club Adventist modulekakomaeric00
Aims to equip people who aspire to become leaders with good qualities,and with Christian values and morals as per Biblical teachings.The you who aspire to be leaders should first read and understand what the ambassador module for leadership says about leadership and marry that to what the bible says.Christians sh
Resumes, Cover Letters, and Applying OnlineBruce Bennett
This webinar showcases resume styles and the elements that go into building your resume. Every job application requires unique skills, and this session will show you how to improve your resume to match the jobs to which you are applying. Additionally, we will discuss cover letters and learn about ideas to include. Every job application requires unique skills so learn ways to give you the best chance of success when applying for a new position. Learn how to take advantage of all the features when uploading a job application to a company’s applicant tracking system.
Jill Pizzola's Tenure as Senior Talent Acquisition Partner at THOMSON REUTERS...dsnow9802
Jill Pizzola's tenure as Senior Talent Acquisition Partner at THOMSON REUTERS in Marlton, New Jersey, from 2018 to 2023, was marked by innovation and excellence.
1. United States District Court
For the District of Connecticut
____________________________________
)
VAN PERRINE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 311-CV-120SSH
)
ROGER’S BUILDING SUPPLY, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________ i
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
QUESTION PRESENTEDii
As a matter of law can an employer be held liable for discrimination under the Americans
with Disabilities Act for allegedly refusing to provide reasonable accommodations based solely
on the choice not to reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position over a candidate of
superior education and qualifications; particularly after providing notice to the employee of the
vacant position, giving their application great consideration, and upon hiring the more educated
and qualified candidate, offering them an alternative position within the company.
PROCEDURAL HISTORYiii
On March 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Roger’s. On May 3, 2011, plaintiff
2. received a dismissal and notice of rights from the EEOC. Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant
to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act on May 9, 2011. Because plaintiff filed his
complaint within 90 days of receiving his dismissal and notice of rights, he has complied with all
conditions precedent to filing the suit. The depositions of both parties have been taken, and
Roger’s now files a Motion for Summary Judgment. In this motion Roger’s seeks summary
judgment determining that as a matter of law an employer cannot be held liable for
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act based solely on failing to reassign a
disabled employee to a vacant position over a candidate of superior education and
qualifications.iv
STATEMENT OF FACTSv
Roger’s is a chain of home improvement stores serving the northeast United States. The
plaintiff worked as a stocker for Roger’s from November 1996 until October 4, 2010. (Com.8).
On October 4, 2010, while plaintiff was performing his typical task of unloading lumber, the
truck he was unloading from rolled forward, and the plaintiff fell approximately seven feet to the
ground, with the metal plank and lumber falling on top of him. As a result of his accident, the
plaintiff is now handicapped and unable to fulfill the job requirements of the stocker position.
(Com.9). Roger’s then provided plaintiff with nine weeks of medical leave.vi
This allowed the
plaintiff to maintain his employment status while he recovered in a hospital and rehabilitation
center. (Com.10). By January 2011 the plaintiff was ready to return to work. On January 5, 2011,
the plaintiff contacted Austin Brady, the district manager of Roger’s, for assistance concerning
transferring to a new position of employment suitable to his confinement to a wheelchair. (Ex.
C). Brady offered the plaintiff advice on exploring the company’s online application resources
and told him to apply for any position he was qualified for. (Ex. B). The plaintiff then applied
for an inventory clerk position. (Ex. B). The 263 applications for the position were examined
thoroughly by Ross Clark, a regional manager at Roger’s. (Ex. A). Clark narrowed the applicant
pool down to the 10 best candidates, one being the plaintiff. (Ex. A). Clark found the plaintiff to
be a top candidate for the job despite only having a GED and no secondary education. After
3. conducting interviews of the top 10 Clark made what he considered the proper business decision.
Pursuant to Roger’s policy to hire the best qualified candidate for every job Clark awarded the
position to a Ms. Farnsworth due to her superior credentials including a college degree and 10
years of experience as an inventory manager. (Ex. A). Mr. Brady offered the plaintiff, who had
been on medical leave, a position as a greeter, which he accepted. (Ex. A).
ARGUMENT Ivii
Summary judgment should be granted in Roger’s favor because an objective
interpretation of the ADA’s plain language concerning reasonable accommodations’ leaves
the plaintiff without a legally valid complaint.
The plaintiff’s discrimination claim is based entirely on the misguided conclusion that the
ADA’s provision concerning reasonable accommodations forces Roger’s to show him
preferential treatment and reassign him to a vacant position despite the existence of other more
qualified applicants. To invalidate this claim we need look no further than the language of the
statute itself.
A. The statutory language of the ADA upon which the plaintiff’s claim is based makes
absolutely no reference to a requirement that an employer reassign a disabled
employee to a vacant position over a better qualified applicant.viii
The ADA states that “no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on
the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or
discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and
privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA goes on to define discrimination as
it applies to the case at hand as “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical
or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or
4. an employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose
an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. §
12112(b)(5)(A). Finally, the ADA provides the following description defining an employer’s
obligation concerning making a reasonable accommodation. “The term reasonable
accommodation may include: (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or
modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of
equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training
materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar
accommodations for individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(A)(B).
This statute contains absolutely no language plainly indicative of any obligation on the part
of an employer to provide a disabled employee with preferential reassignment over other
qualified applicants to a vacant position. An objective interpretation of the statute entitles the
plaintiff to a vacant position, not the vacant position of his choice, and not preferential treatment
over other qualified applicants.ix
Based on this unbiased interpretation of the statute’s plain
language an employer’s obligation to make reasonable accommodations in respect to the
reassignment of a disabled employee is satisfied simply by offering them a vacant position
within the company for which they are qualified.
B. Federal Appellate Courts across the nation have adopted positions rejecting the notion
that the language of the ADA establishes a requirement that employers reassign
disabled employees to vacant positions ahead of more qualified candidates.
In the interest of preventing injusticex
numerous Federal Appellate Courts spanning the
country have rendered decisions adopting and mirroring this objective interpretation. In Huber
v. Wal-mart the 8th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the ADA “is not a mandatory
5. preference act… and does not require an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a
vacant position when such a reassignment would violate a legitimate nondiscriminatory policy of
the employer to hire the most qualified candidate.” Huber v. Wal-mart Stores Inc. 486 F.3d 483
(2007). In Daughtry v. City of El Paso the 5th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denounced the idea
of interpreting the ADA’s requirement of reasonable accommodation to include preferential
reassignment and portrayed the notion as an unfounded leap towards affirmative action. “We do
not read the ADA as requiring affirmative action in favor of individuals with disabilities, in the
sense of requiring that disabled persons be given priority in hiring or reassignment over those
who are not disabled. It prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with
disabilities, no more and no less.” Daughtry v. City of El Paso 56 F.3d 699 (1995). In E.E.O.C v.
Humiston-Keeling, Inc. the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 7th
circuit followed suit when it rejected
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s contention that the statute called for
preferential reassignment, stating: “The fact that the disability isn’t what makes the disabled
person unable to perform the job as well as the person who got it is, in the Commission’s view,
irrelevant. We do not agree with the Commission’s view on the statutory provision on
reassignment.” E.E.O.C v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc. 227 F.3d 1027 (2000). This decision
represents not only another voucher for the fair and objective interpretation of the ADA’s
provision on reassignment; it serves to massively discredit a persuasive resource of the opposing
viewpoint.xi
In fact, the 7th
circuit of the Federal Court System found the notion of preferential
reassignment so insufficiently persuasive that they rejected it even with the ADA’s regulatory
agency as its champion.
C. Based on the statute’s plain meaning Roger’s has fulfilled its obligation to provide
reasonable accommodations to the plaintiff and should be exonerated of any charge of
discrimination.
6. After an examination of the ADA’s plain meaning and in compliance with the decisions
rendered in the cases above, it can be said that Roger’sxii
never had an obligation to reassign the
plaintiff to a vacant position ahead of a more qualified applicant. In fact, the only obligation
bestowed upon Roger’s by the reassignment provision of the ADA was to accommodate the
plaintiff with a vacant position within the company that he could perform. Roger’s offered the
plaintiff a vacant position within the company that he was capable of doing. A fact the plaintiff
cannot deny.xiii
In so doing Roger’s fulfilled its obligation to reasonably accommodate the
plaintiff and satisfied with full compliance the requirements of the ADA including the only
provision at issue in this case. In turn, summary judgment should be entered in Roger’s favor.
ARGUMENT II
Summary Judgment should be granted in Roger’s favor because the legislative history
of the ADA clearly reflects that the legislature never intended the act to be interpreted to
demand preferential treatment of the handicapped over other more qualified applicants.xiv
At no point in the history of the ADA have the legislative bodies of this country intended the
act to give rise to complaints such as the plaintiff’s. In fact, they’ve went to great lengths to
prevent them. The legislature’s intent to exclude actions based on preferential hiring due to
disabilities from validation under the act was made clear in a House Committee Report before
the act was passed and emphasized in a later amendment.
A. House Report No. 101-485(III) explicitly condones the idea that the act creates an
obligation for employers to show preference to handicapped candidates in the hiring
process.
In 1990, while the ADA was a bill going through the final stages of legislation, The
Committee on the Judiciary was charged with amending the bill to establish clear standards for
the prohibition of discrimination based on disability. Upon completion of this task they
7. compiled House Report No. 101-485xv
which included a comprehensive report of their findings
and a section by section analysis of the bills purpose and legislative intent. The following is a
quote from the section analyzing discrimination:
“As with other civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, the Committee does
not intend to limit the ability of covered entities to choose and maintain a qualified workforce.
Covered entities continue to have the ability to hire and employ employees who can perform the
job. Employers can continue to use job-related criteria in choosing qualified employees. For
example, in a job that requires lifting 50 pound boxes, an employer may test applicants and
employees to determine whether they can lift 50 pound boxes. Similarly, an employer can
continue to give typists typing tests to determine their abilities. The Committee does not intend
that covered entities have an obligation to prefer applicants with disabilities over other
applicants on the basis of disability.” H. Rep. No. 101–485(III) (May 15, 1990). xvi
This statement clearly expresses the legislature’s desire to negate interpretations of the bill
that impose mandates on employers like Roger’s that require they show favoritism to
handicapped individuals over other qualified applicants simply based on their handicap.
B. In their 2008 amendment of the ADA the legislature narrowed key terms of the act in
an attempt to better define the type of discriminatory action for which the statute
provides an avenue of recovery.
The 2008 amendment struck the term “discriminate” from §12112 of the act and replaced it
with the phrase “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability”. PL 110–
325 (S 3406). This is indicative of the legislature’s continued desire to prevent meritless suits
pursuant to the act. It more clearly indicates that plaintiff’s seeking recovery under the ADA
must show that they have been denied opportunities based on their handicap. In the case at hand,
to allege discrimination in the hiring process, the plaintiff must show his handicap to be the “but
for” reason his job application was declined. Simply qualifying as handicapped and being
passed on for an equally if not more desirable candidate is not sufficient to seek recovery for
discrimination.
8. ARGUMENT III
Summary judgment should be granted in favor of Roger’s based on the principles of
promoting good policy and fairness to the general public.xvii
For the benefit of the American workforce and as a matter of good public policy the act
should not be interpreted to require preferential reassignment to satisfy its demand for reasonable
accommodation. Such an interpretation would put in doubt the very parameters of the term
“reasonable” and expose the American Court system and business structure to a plethora of
problematic civil pursuits bolstered by statutory overreach, all culminating in a bottomless pit of
unnecessary adjudication.xviii
A plain reading of the statutes meaning and examination of the
legislature’s obvious intent, leaves no doubt, that as a matter of good policy and general fairness
to the American job applicant, this court can not adopt a standard that provides a class of people
an unwarranted advantage in the hiring process. On principle, such interpretation would
contradict the very core values the ADA was intended to promote. The act fights to level the
playing field in the pursuit of happiness for all people, not skew it to the automatic advantage of
one class, regardless of what sets that class apart.
CONCLUSIONxix
Roger’s should be granted summary judgment determining that as a matter of law an
employer cannot be held liable for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act
based solely on failing to reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position over a candidate of
superior education and qualifications. In striving to maintain continuity to the plain language of
the statute, respect for Congress’ legislative intent, and general fairness amongst American job
applicants, this court should grant Roger’s motion for summary judgment.
9. October 1, 2011 Respectfully Submitted,xx
Adam Anderson
Adam Anderson, Esq.
State Bar No. 4567
11 Hamlet Way
Normal, IL 60603
(773) 553-1000
10. i
Here I’ve attempted to reorganize the heading of my document that notes the plaintiff,
defendant and case number. In my original work it was disorganized and poorly aligned.
Cleaning it up and restructuring this section certainly provides a boost in my ethos with the
Court. My original attempt was poorly formatted and looked unprofessional. Submitting poorly
formatted work to the Court is a terrible mistake, especially when the problem exists in the very
first lines of the document.
ii
The question presented serves two purposes. The heading itself provides structure to the
memo making it easy to read, while the content within provides explicit direction for the Court,
leaving no doubt from the very beginning as to what issues will be discussed. Ethos is boosted
because proper structure connotes professionalism.
iii
A procedural history section such as this one is also a great ethos booster. This section
immediately informs the Court of the actions taken in the case leading up to the current motion.
It insures the Court that the correct steps have been taken leading up to the motion and indicates
that filing it is an appropriate action. I feel including a detailed section such as this one makes
the filing attorney look professional, and indicates to anyone reading it that they were willing to
take the time to provide a thorough explanation.
iv
This section was originally the most mistake laden area of my paper. I had actually mixed the
two parties up often referring to Perrine as the defendant and Roger’s as the plaintiff. I also
stated that it was the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment which is clearly not the case.
There were also gross amounts of unnecessary capitalizations throughout. I truly feel sorry for
anyone who read this original document because I almost certainly confused them from the very
beginning. I’ve attempted to make sense of my errors and compared to the original, ethos is
substantially boosted.
v
This section provides a structured and succinct description of the relevant facts. It provides the
Court with immediate context for the issues and my arguments. A professionally written
statement of the facts boosts ethos and the context it provides boosts the logos of my arguments
later in the document.
vi
While a statement of the facts is a less argumentative section and must contain only truths, it
can still be written in a way that boosts pathos for a client. Throughout these first through lines
I’ve employed several techniques in an attempt to do so. I referred to my client, “Roger’s,” first
and called them by name as opposed to using the term “defendant.” In turn I mentioned Van
Perrine second referring to him only as “plaintiff.” This was an attempt to humanize my client in
the mind of the reader while dehumanizing the opposition. Then I immediately and succinctly
got the unfavorable facts concerning the injury suffered by Perrine while working for Roger’s
out of the way. In turn, I immediately tried to further declaw them with a more humanizing and
favorable reference to the fact that Roger’s provided him with medical leave and allowed him to
maintain his employment status. Pathos boosts all around.
vii
I broke my argument sections into headings and subheadings. I felt this provided my paper
more organization (boosting ethos) and made my individual arguments easier to understand
(boosting logos).
11. viii
The font of this subheading was inconsistent with the rest of the document. I’m not sure how
or why this mistake was made. I changed it to the font I used throughout to provide uniformity.
I feel this looked more professional, thus boosting ethos.
ix
This is my plain language argument concerning the applicable statute in this case. I reworded
it slightly and tried to place precise emphasis on the word “a” in the statutes language. In the
context of an objective reading of the statute I feel this argument boosted my logos substantially.
x
I decided to use the term “preventing injustice” here as opposed “fairness” because I feel like it
provided a boost of pathos. We’re not just trying to make a “fair” decision here, we’re trying to
“prevent a terrible injustice” from being done to poor defendant Roger’s!
xi
References to direct quotes from other persuasively similar cases that support my interpretation
of the statute’s language provide a strong foundation for my logic. Logos is boosted.
xii
Here I misspelled “Roger’s” as “Rodger’s.” I managed to do this at random in several places
throughout the document. My ethos was obviously taking a hit. It may have even weakened
my pathos because it appeared I didn’t care enough to take the time to consistently spell my
clients name correctly. Needless to say I’ve attempted to correct this error throughout.
xiii
Here I’ve noted that the plaintiff “cannot deny” a fact that supports the logic of my conclusion
in this argument. I think this not only boosts my logos, but in a roundabout way boosts my
pathos by using the term “cannot deny” to imply that the plaintiff himself is guilty of something.
I had used the phrase “does not deny” in the original document but chose to switch to “cannot
deny.” While both statements are true, the term “cannot” villainizes the plaintiff and gives the
statement more bite in the mind of the reader because it implies he sure would like to be able to
deny it.
xiv
In my original document I had typed this heading all in capital letters making it inconsistent
with the other equivalent headings in the document. Again, I corrected this formatting mistake
to boost ethos.
xv
I remember going to great lengths to find this house report on the ADA when it was still a bill.
This was an attempt to boost my logos substantially by demonstrating support for the logic
behind my interpretation of the act coming directly from the people who created it.
xvi
This was my attempt to reformat this rather lengthy quotation to the appropriate “block”
format. I know the block format is appropriate here but I admittedly struggled to implement the
change very well. This was an attempt to boost ethos, and an improvement over the original, but
it remains something I feel I need to work on.
xvii
This was the public policy argument section of my paper. While briefer than my other
arguments I tried to use it as a chance to stand on my soapbox and boost some pathos. I’m
interpreting the act this way for the good of the common man!
12. xviii
I think this sentence was me jumping up and down on that soapbox. This was an attempt to
support the logic of my argument while simultaneously boosting pathos by referencing the
rampant waste and injustice that would the American people would be forced to suffer under the
alternative interpretation.
xix
This section provides a quick and succinct reference to the overarching conclusion drawn by
all of my arguments. While the section isn’t overly descriptive the reader finishes with each of
my arguments for a favorable judgment fresh in their mind.
xx
An appropriately formatted and cordial signature/salutation block at the end is useful in two
ways: 1. it demonstrates respect for the Court thus boosting pathos; 2. it lists my credentials,
thus boosting ethos.