Ernestine Petrillo Controversy Analysis

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

Issue: Did BAE discriminate against Frynee in violation of her right to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution?

Gwendolyn I. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Company 15 F.3d 1375 (6th Cir 1994) case supports our recommendation of litigation because Cooper could not establish prima facie case of discrimination, that Oak reasonably accommodated her religious beliefs. The district court concluded that Oak could not have relieved Cooper all Saturday work responsibility without suffering undue hardship, i.e., the need to hire another employee or a resulting loss of production.

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

In summary, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia is a daycare organization that has some religious classes. They applied for funds for playground equipment and were denied by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for funds, because Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution says that money shouldn't be given to organizations that support religion. Trinity sued because it is against Freedom of religion if you are going to cut off certain groups of people from grants or charity, just

An example of the complications involving religious neutrality, and the difficulties that emanate from trying to respect all representations of religion arise in the Chino Valley school board case. School board president, Andrew Cruz became known for, “opening board meetings with an invocation prayer, but also discussing religion and reading from the Bible throughout the meetings,” (Yarbrough). In the Chino Valley case, the display of explicitly Christian messages and scriptures provided grounds for the atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, to sue for violating the United States, and the California Constitution. The issue of neutrality arises in the decision-making of the Court. If the Court rules for the Freedom From Religion Foundation and agrees that the appearance of the explicitly Christian material has no place in a school board meeting, Cruz and his like-minded believers may feel that their right to practice religion has been infringed upon. However, if the court rules for Cruz, those who identify themselves as being in the minority of religious groups may feel that the Court has respected the majority religion over theirs, thereby ignoring their

I take issues with two major claims that are made by the petitioner. Ms. Fisher had argued that her opportunity to attend UT Austin has been denied purely on the basis of her race, and that she has suffered unequal treatments throughout the admission process. Given the evidences that have been reviewed by this court, Ms. Fisher’s presumption that she could have been placed at a more favorable position, had UT Austin not consider applicant’s race factor to against her, is simply ill founded. If anything, petitioner has showed a tendency to ignore the conclusive information and figures, and strong enthusiasm in defining UT’s enrollment diversity with bias numerical measures. Nevertheless, since Ms. Fisher’s application profile does not thrive

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution sanctioned all 50 States to protect all citizens, by requiring that all citizens are treated according to the Bill of Rights, by protecting “the inalienable rights of all its citizens” (Fisher, 2013, pg. 3). Although, the inalienable rights of men are projected differently, both from a Biblical perspective and a Constitution, Declaration, there are or will be several morals violations among citizens that must be addressed. Particularly, in this case on Religious Discrimination and Racial Harassment in the Workforce.

There most significant legal issue related to this case is that there is no clear definition as to what diversity, underrepresentation and an appropriate

The next case, Walz v Tax Comm’n of the City of New York, was also brought to the light of the Supreme court for alleged violation of the Establishment Clause as well. The circumstances of the case are also similar to that of the Everson v Board of Education. The plaintiff, being Mr. Walz, held land in New York City. Mr. Walz filed a lawsuit in state court pursuing a decree that will restrict the Tax Commission from executing a segment of the New York Constitution which gave immunity from property taxes upon the land operated exclusively for the purposes of religion, education, and or charity. The problem that could have risen from this tax exemption was that someone could argue that this was favoring a certain religion and violating the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. This is exactly the argument that was made by Mr. Walz. Both court of appeals and the state supreme court conceded summary judgement for the Tax Commision. A summary

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 for civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and 28 U.S.C. 1332 due to a complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Nantiya Ruan, currently a Professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, has years of experience representing plaintiffs in complex litigations in the United States, including cases on civil rights, employment discrimination, and compensation. In this article, much is spoken about the various laws protecting one against religious discrimination, including the Free Exercise Clause, the First Amendment, and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, among others. The article places emphasis on several cases where the courts have denied religious expression in the workplace. To solve these inconsistencies, Ruan devises three approaches for the courts to provide protection for respectful religious expression. Ruan states that, "This

The second case is A Texas public school teacher name Karen Jo Barrow was denied a promotion to assistant principal because her children went to a private Christian school. She was teacher for fifteen years before that and had all of the appropriate

This passage reminds of the time when I was at the airport waving goodbye to my cousin, just before she went through the security checkpoint. Just like what Liesel did in the text, I was also holding on to my cousin's hand until I got blocked off by one of the security guards, who were at the entrance of the checkpoint. However I was only five at that time, so I didn’t care about what the security guard said and kept on following my cousin. As a result, the guard was angered and I was asked to leave the checkpoint and my cousin alone. As I left, my eyes were teary because she was the only girl cousin that I had and that she cares about me. As a result, I can still remember this experience clearly in my

Christian companies are being forced to provide services to groups that go against their religion. In 2013, Aaron and Melissa Klein politely declined to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage because they felt that it went against their beliefs. While this was the right decision in the Klein’s eyes, the repercussions were steep. The state of Oregon punished the