Labor and Employment Law

Key Topics

Case briefing

Write a briefing of the 3 cases:
1.Young v. United Parcel Service, 135 S.Ct. 1338
2.Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v Busk, 135 S.Ct. 513
3.M & G POLYMERS USA v HOBERT FREEL

Solution

Case Name: Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v Busk, 135 S.Ct. 513
Facts: Integrity Staffing Solutions hired several employees to work in Amazon.com’s warehouse to help in packaging and fulfilling orders. Jesse Busk was one of the employees. At the end of each day, they went a security check for theft. The employees sued their employer saying that they were entitled to be compensated for those 25 minutes of screening under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court dismissed the case saying that the checks were made after working hours, so it was not part of the job. The Ninth Circuit disagreed saying that the security checks were integral to the job, as it was necessary for theft prevention. Certiorari was granted for the employer’s petition to evaluate whether FLSA required compensation for the time spent by the workers for security checks.
Issue: It was whether the workers were to be compensated under the FLSA for the security checks.
Holding: Justice Clarence Thomas gave the final judgment saying that the time spent by workers during the security checks was not compensable under the FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. A concurring opinion was given by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.
Rationale: According to the Portal-to-Portal Act, employers were granted limited immunity and compensation for the time required for travelling to and from the actual place of work. As the security checks were not part of the actual job, and were not integral to the employee’s duties, the employees were not liable for compensation.

The experts of Allassignmenthelp.com can help provide the best online law essay help for students. You need not worry anymore as our professional writers can write a standardized constitutional law assignment help at the most affordable price. We are the best and most reliable and professional website to assist you with the law dissertation help.

Case Name: Young v. United Parcel Service, 135 S.Ct. 1338
Facts: Peggy Young used to be a transport driver for the United Parcel Service (UPS). She requested a period away with a particular ultimate objective to involvement in vitro arrangement in 2006. Amid her pregnancy, Peggy's restorative authorities provoked her to avoid lifting more than 20 pounds during work. UPS's illustrative procedure needed their workers to lift 70 pounds or more. Because of Peggy's pregnancy, she neglected to fulfill this activity necessity, and because of her using all her family and medicinal leaves, UPS compelled Young to take a broadened unpaid leave during which she was disqualified for her health benefits. Peggy gave birth during 2007 in April and resumed her job at UPS. Peggy Young sued UPS and stated that she was victimized by UPS on the basis of gender discrimination and inadequacy based partition under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
Issue: Whether she would be compensated for gender and pregnancy based discrimination due to the violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
Holdings: Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion through majority favor of Young for 6-3.
Rationale: According to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), it is required by the employees to offer an indistinguishable lodging to pregnant employees from all others with practically identical physical impediments paying little mind to different components that would be excessively wide. Therefore, pregnancy leave will be compensable under the PDA act.

Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now

We have some amazing discount offers running for the students

Place Your Order

Case Name: M & G POLYMERS USA v HOBERT FREEL
Facts:  On 26 January 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court commonly ruled that courts should apply ordinary agreement principles to agree on whether retiree healthiness care benefits vest for living and survive the termination of a combined bargaining conformity. It brought a class accomplishment against Employee Retirement Income Security Act and labor management relations act for granting a lifetime contribution to the health care benefits. Hobert Freel, whose attorneys supply to this blog in diverse capacities, filed an amicus pithy in hold up of neither party in this respective case. It afforded a vested right to lifetime no-employee-contribution retiree health remuneration. After denying employer’s activity for summary judgment, it requires employer to reinstate retirees’ benefits, and parties appealed. Finally, it is confirmed and certiorari is approved.
Issue: It is amended by retirees recognized that the agreements lack apparent and articulate language vesting benefits, the Supreme Court did not direct opinion on this issue.
Holding: To conclude whether retiree health-care reimbursement survives the termination of a collective negotiates agreement; courts should concern ordinary agreement principles. The respective principles do not comprise the Sixth Circuit’s intrusion that parties to combined bargaining would intend retiree remuneration to vest for living.
Rationale: In the absence of termination, it is established as the Employee Retirement Income Security to pursuant as a design disability as they it sees fit. In terms of certain benefits, it continues as the agreement’s expiration. It intended as the labor employment with applied of collective-bargaining agreements.

 

Get Quality Assignment Without Paying Upfront

Hire World's #1 Assignment Help Company

Place Your Order