Case Brief for Sherman V. Marriott International

        Brief assignment about Case 3-1

1. Fact:

1. Sherman, who was African-American, was attending conference in Baltimore.
2. He had been locked out of his room while he was staying at Marriott in Baltimore.
3. He went to the front desk and there was an employee, who was Caucasian, and the employee asked him to show his ID.
4. He was locked out after his work-out, so couldn’t show any evidence to prove himself, identification.
5. He was asked to be escorted to his room and come back to the front desk, which was a procedure according to the hotel policy.
6. Next night, he heard that another guest, who was Caucasian woman, had same situation, and she got the replacement key right away.
7. He was upset and sued them according to the Racial Discrimination

1. Issue:

1. Did Sherman got discriminated from the hotel employee?

1. Rule: According to the text book, this case has been settled as Poor Customer Service under Racial Discrimination.
2. Conclusion:

1. Plaintiff lost.

1. Procedural Posture

1. He filed sue and juror was entitled the hotel to summary judgment.

Case 3-2

1. Fact

1. There was a community of approximately 8,500 people in which more than 2,000 Mexican-Americans, who all of them were citizens, have been living for 4 years.
2. They, Mexican-Americans, were the big traders for Taffrail Tavern.
3. There were a big ‘dislike’ problem between Anglo and Chicano.
4. The owner of that ‘Tavern’ made policy about no other language is allowed at the bar besides English. Because Anglo might get offended by Chicano who might speak about Anglo in his language.
5. On Aug. 23, 1972, Hernandez and Abel and Maldonado went to Tavern and had beers. While they were drinking at the bar, they spoke in Spanish. Anglo customer asked defendant Krausnick to send them to booth or out.
6. They were mad and had argument with defendant, so defendant just dumped their beers and didn’t get their money back.
7. Two days later, other 3 Chicanos have been engaged into fight with other 3 Anglos, and one of Chicanos, Gonzales was struck by one of the Anglos, Clary with a fire Extinguisher.
8. Krausnick testified that he was enfored “Rule 11” made by Tavern’s owners.
9. John Erienbusch testified that he adopted that rule just to avoid trouble and to preserve his license.

1. Issue

1. Does Plaintiff have been discriminated from speaking Spanish in the tavern?

1. Rule

1. Language Discrimination under Civil Rights Act of 1964

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff, Hernadez, won.
2. As a foreigner, I do support this result. And also, as a customer, I believe that I do have right to speak Korean if I want to.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Appealed.

Case 3-6

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff, Robert Demar, had severe polio and post-polio, which made him as disabled.
2. He went to watch World Series game of Chicago White Sox on September 7, 2003, in Chicago, Illinois.
3. After the game had been ended, Demar has been tried to leave the seat, but he found out the long line formed by other “able” crowd.
4. He tried to leave later, when the line became thinner.
5. One of the officer from Defendant SDI Security, Inc. came up to Demar and took his walking cane and removed him to the ground level, where an ambulance was ready.
6. Another Defendant Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc. took him to a hospital to examine or treat.
7. Demar refused to be examined but he was forced to fend for himself to get back to his vehicle.
8. He got a bill from Superior for the Ambulance, and Demar sued them with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

1. Issue

1. Should CWS make any difference in their policy toward to Disabled Customers?

1. Rule

1. The Americans with Disabilities Act

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant lost.
2. I believe that disabled people, not only genetically born but also became after they were born, should be treated as regular people. But in some situations, they need to be treated as social weaker. According to the article, CWS couldn’t treat them as social weaker. CWS should understand that Demar might took more time than others and made some exceptions of their policy to their disabled Fan.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Filed
2. Settled

Case 3-7

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff, who was disabled patriot, visited Defendant’s property in Perrysburg, Ohio.
2. The defendant’s facility was a public accommodation mentioned in ADA rules.
3. Plaintiff found out that the facilities of defendant’s was not favored to disabled people.
4. Plaintiff filed for the defendant’s failure to remove barriers for plaintiff’s enjoyment.
5. The court ordered plaintiff and defendant to provide detailed lists of violation of defendant’s property, but plaintiff couldn’t prove enough “readily achievable”.
6. Plaintiff couldn’t verify defendant’s financial resources.

1. Issue

1. Does defendant’s operation have “readily achievable” to renovate?

1. Rule

1. The Americans with Disabled Act

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost.
2. I think court was right, because Plaintiff couldn’t verify enough financial needs for renovation, and even though they can prove it, it would be a lot of amount.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Filed
2. Court ordered detailed information
3. Plaintiff failed a prima facie case of disability discrimination
4. Case dismissed

Case 3-8

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff, Ralph Boemio, is a qualified handicapped person.
2. Plaintiff was under a medical condition that he had to use motorized wheelchair.
3. On or about April 19, 1996, Defendant, Love’s Restaurant, operated the facility in San Diego.
4. On or about April 19, 1996, defendant’s facility was a public accommodation that required to be accessible to physically handicapped persons.
5. On or about April 19, 1996, Plaintiff attempted to use the restroom in the defendant’s property, but it inaccessible for wheelchair.
6. The ladies’ restroom was used by some disabled people with assistance of staff members.
7. And also, a size of the door for the ladies’ room wasn’t fit for his motorized wheelchair.
8. Plaintiff had to urinate in the parking lot.
9. He was mentally damaged with anguish and humiliation.

1. Issue

1. Could Plaintiff access the bathroom facilities in the property with her wheelchair?

1. Rule

1. The Americans with Disabilities Act

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff won
2. I believe that it was definitely defendant’s fault. If they would follow the protocol of ADA, this kind of issues wouldn’t happen. The defendant was fault for not following the rules that it should follow, also.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Filed
2. Trial
3. Judgment in favor of Plaintiff
4. Remedies

Case 3-9

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff, Alexis and her family, who are African-Americans, visited McDonald in Massachusetts.
2. Alfredo Pascacio, who is Spanish, served them as a service counter.
3. Pascacio had mistaken order from Plaintiff, Alexis, so “swing manager”, Donna Domina came up to the counter.
4. Domina was on behalf of Pascacio, so Alexis was angry.
5. Domina refused the Alexis family to eat in McDonald’s dining area.
6. Sherry Toham, a managerial employee, sent Defendant Michael Leporati into the restaurant.
7. Leporati tried to settle this situation as sending Alexis out of the restaurant.
8. Alexis denied and claimed a right to finish eating in the restaurant.
9. Police officer came in to arrest Alexis.
10. Alexis filed sue and submitted six deposition testimonies.
11. Alexis understood that this crisis happened based on her skin color.
12. The court dismissed this claim with the summary judgment in favor of Domina and McDonald.

1. Issue

1. Was Alexis has been discriminated under the civil rights act of 1964?

1. Rule

1. The civil rights act of 1964

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost.
2. Not only customers, but also the employees have their right for their sight of view. Emotional labors should have more rights to customers to refuse for their mental health.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Filed
2. Summary judgment
3. Dismissed

Case 3-10

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff, about 26 years of age, and her male escort attended a dance.
2. Plaintiff and her company visited the restaurant owned by Marriott Corporation without Plaintiff’s shoes.
3. After they ordered, paid and received their food, the Manager of the restaurant showed up and asked her to leave because she didn’t wear her shoes on.
4. She replied to leave after she finished her food, but the manager asked her to leave right away.
5. She became aggressive with her language, so the manager went out to bring a police officer.
6. The police officer ordered her to leave, but she replied not to leave unless she finished her food.
7. The police officer arrested her.
8. She filed a claim.

1. Issue

1. Could the police officer’s arrest be justified?

1. Rule

1. Discrimination Act under civil rights

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost
2. I think that the police officer’s action to arrest her in that position was too aggressive. It wouldn’t take that long for her to finish her food, but I think he got offensive from her language.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Filed
2. Appeal

Case 4-1

1. Fact

1. The defendant had a gas station across the street from the Hilton Garden Inn.
2. A sewer line of the defendant’s property has been connected to a university’s main sewer line.
3. The defendant had a 10-year contract with university for the usage of sewer line, till June 2001.
4. In 2001, Hilton Garden Inn planned to construct hotel in a ground of the western edge of North Dakota campus.
5. Plaintiff and defendant had a meeting for the agreement for the sewer line relocation expenses.
6. Defendant rejected the payment for the relocation.
7. In April 2002, construction has been started.
8. During the construction, defendant used the sewer line even though the lease had been expired.
9. Plaintiff sued the defendant for the usage of sewer line.

1. Issue

1. Did Defendant take an advantage while the plaintiff was under construction?

1. Rule

1. Lack of Mutuality, in 6 elements of Contract law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff Lost
2. I believe that Plaintiff has been angry about the usage of the sewer line, but there were no evidence showed that defendant should pay for that. But, university can sue the defendant for the illegal usage of sewer line after the contract has been over.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Plaintiff has been denied from the court for the recovery.

Case 4-2

1. Fact

1. The defendant was holding annual meeting.
2. The defendant contracted to Denver Convention and Visitor’s Bureau in 1975 for the convention in 1980.
3. The Visitor’s Bureau looked for several hotels, and the Plaintiff answered to hold rooms for them.
4. The defendant and Plaintiff had a document named “Regency Inn-Meeting/ Convention Contract.”
5. On March 1980, Defendant sent out mails to its member to reserve room for the convention.
6. The mails were forwarded to Visitors’ Bureau and they found out that no one was in a favor of Plaintiff’s property.
7. On July 21, 1980, convention coordinator wrote letter to Plaintiff to cancel the reservation.
8. The Plaintiff sued defendant with the policy of itself.

1. Issue

1. Did Defendant violate the contract between Plaintiff and defendant?

1. Rule

1. Illusory contracts under Contract Law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost.
2. It was vague contract between defendant and plaintiff. I think the judgment was right about its decision

1. Procedure Posture

1. According to research, there was appeal and cross appeal. At the last appeal, defendant lost for the liquidated damage of Plaintiff, but the final court has been reversed it.

Case 4-3

1. Fact

1. On October 11, 2002, Defendant was asked from Plaintiff to find a buyer for the property of plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff orally promised to pay 10 percent of its price to defendant.
3. Defendant found buyers for Plaintiff
4. Plaintiff refused to pay 10percent.

1. Issue

1. Should Plaintiff pay out to Defendant?

1. Rule

1. Oral agreement under Contract Law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost
2. Yes, the Plaintiff should pay to Defendant, since it was a part of their agreement. But it would be better for the defendant to make a writing work for the agreement.

1. Procedure posture

1. Plaintiff appeal to the court for missing evidence of oral agreement in the sale or purchase of real estate, but the court refused that appeal.

Case 4-4

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff is working for the company named Whataburger Mexico, which is receiving supplement from Defendant Company.
2. Defendant followed precise procedures asked from the plaintiff’s company.
3. Plaintiff didn’t pay for the shipment from Defendant.
4. Defendant sued Plaintiff first, but it was ended to be in favor of plaintiff.
5. Defendant appealed to court and Plaintiff stated that it couldn’t be the statue of frauds because it was more than $500 and should be a written agreement.

1. Issue

1. Could the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant be the statue of frauds?

1. Rule

1. Lack of proper agreement under Contract Law

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant won
2. I do agree with the decision with the court. Plaintiff should pay Defendant.

1. Procedure posture

1. Filed
2. Trial
3. Appeal
4. Reversed

Case 4-5

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff was a business with printing and design firm in food industry
2. Defendant owned several Mexican restaurants.
3. One of Plaintiff’s sales men made a sale with Defendant.
4. In February, 1993 defendant signed contract with many items that they need, and the contract was about great discounts on those products.
5. In front of jury, the sales man of Plaintiff said that he was taught as he did from his boss.
6. The sales man, Klein, guaranteed what could not be made. Also, he distracted while defendant was signing his contract.

1. Issue

1. Should the contract between plaintiff and defendant be performed even though it had fraud purpose?

1. Rule

1. Fraud and misrepresentation under Genuine Assent which is one of 6 elements of Contract Law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff Lost
2. Plaintiff was intended to be fraud to defendant. Plaintiff should be denied from jury’s favor.

1. Procedure Posture

1. Appealed to be trial. Jury was in favor of defendant as the first trial.

Case 4-6

1. Fact

1.  Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant agreed about “Civil Authority” clause which is written as ‘We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain caused by action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises.’
2. On September 11, 2001, visitors to the Plaintiff’s property couldn’t move with airplane because of Federal Aviation administration’s regulation
3. Plaintiff asked for the recovery to defendant, which was denied.
4. Plaintiff filed a claim with defendant.
5. They were arguing about the language of a contract ‘prohibits access’, which was unclear and ambiguous.
6. The court could only count it as the word was expressed, since there weren’t any clarity of the definition.
7. The court affirmed defendant, because FAA couldn’t actually ‘prohibits access’ to the plaintiff’s property because the word ‘prohibit’ is defined as ‘formally forbid, esp. by authority’ and access means ‘a way of approaching or reaching or entering’.
8. The Facility of plaintiff couldn’t be ‘prohibits access’ by FAA, literally. FAA has been closed down only airway.

1. Issue

1. How can be the clause “prohibits access” defined under the premise in the contract?

1. Rule

1. Ambiguous terms defined under the Contract law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost because of ambiguity of the contract.
2. I would like to be on the defendant side. It was ridiculous that insurance should pay for that accident. It was national emergency. Even though, Plaintiff lost its profit, it should understand the circumstance.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Discovery exchanged
3. Motion to dismiss
4. Dismissed with in favor of Defendant.

Case 4-7

1. Fact

1. In December 1981, the defendant sent an advertising letter to Plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff made an oral contract with defendant without the company policy about cancellation.
3. Defendant was sure about the date that plaintiff needed, which was May 1982, the opening day of the 1982 World’s Fair over the phone.
4. Plaintiff sent deposit $10,720 to defendant.
5. Plaintiff received written letter with confirmation of room reservation and the date requested.
6. On or about March 27, 1982, plaintiff’s representative visited to check the process of the construction, but it seemed far to be done.
7. On or about April 16, 1982, one of representative of Plaintiff visited again to check but looked like couldn’t be done by the date.
8. Plaintiff cancelled through letter and asked for full deposit back.
9. An industry-wide custom to cancel was noticing 30 days before the arrival.
10. Defendant denied for full refund regard to cancellation policy.
11. Defendant insisted that they had valid oral contract.
12. The court found out that there was no exchange about terms for cancellation of the contract.
13. The court looked for usages of trade to determine.

1. Issue

1. Without a mention of company policy, the oral contract can be used?

1. Rule

1. Lack of company policy information leads to violate of Contract law.

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff won with the judgment order from the court.
2. I believe that the court followed right path to decide. Defendant should tell plaintiff about the policy when they are making a contract.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed case
2. Exchange discovery
3. Order for motion to dismiss from the court

Case 4-8

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff and Defendant had a contract about sharing profits from defendant’s earning.
2. The contract had 3 conditions; a definitive and mutual satisfactory purchasing agreement, shareholder approval of the purchase agreement, and approval by respective counsel.
3. Defendant accepted the deal
4. There were no purchase agreement and shareholder’s meeting
5. March, 1994, defendant started new business with Indian hotel.
6. Plaintiff asked for sharing their portion of sales.
7. Defendant denied paying them because of lack of condition.

1. Issue

1. Did Defendant violate the bleach of contract?

1. Rule

1. Lack of condition implement under Contract Law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost because the conditions should be followed for the bleach of contract.
2. I didn’t know about the idea of ‘condition’. After I read about it, I believe that the condition should be met before they perform.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Case filed
2. Evidence exchanged
3. Motion to dismiss

Case 4-9

1. Fact

1. Continued from 4-8 case, reasoning.
2. The court had speculative remote and undefined damage claim from Plaintiff
3. Plaintiff was argued that defendant could have the opportunity because of them.
4. Plaintiff still couldn’t know any certain damage from the breach of contract.
5. The court thought as the opportunity was made from the state.
6. Plaintiff lost its “opportunity” to rebuild its certain damage.

1. Issue

1. Could the Plaintiff define certain damage from the breach of contract with defendant?

1. Rule

1. Fail to establish any damage from the breach of contract, Contract law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff Lost
2. I believe that the court was right. Defendant didn’t have to follow the contract because there was some conditions should follow. And Plaintiff, also, couldn’t claim any certain damages.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Case filed
2. Evidence exchanged
3. Motion to dismiss

Case 4-10

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff leased the ground floor of Defendant’s property to open a restaurant in Seattle.
2. To find the agreement for equipment installation, it took 18 months.
3. Plaintiff sued and it went to trial
4. 2 witness, general manager of the restaurant and an expert on the restaurant industry.
5. GM went through the entire restaurant in Seattle to research.
6. The expert had the experience to prove for his position; 40 years experiences and for the last 12 years, he owned his own company.
7. In Washington, a plaintiff should prove reasonable certainty to get recovery from breach of contract.
8. Defendant argued that plaintiff couldn’t establish certain lost.
9. The court qualified GM and the expert to summarize the lost.
10. GM was qualified with her experience in Portland, Oregon. She did manage ‘opened’ restaurant.
11. Also, GM worked with group of research team for the new restaurant.
12. The expert offered hard copy of his experience such as mails from clients for last 12 years.
13. The court counted the references from GM and the expert for the alternative to actual profit and loss statements.
14. The court counted the proof from GM and the expert, and Plaintiff could prove its future generated profits and loss.

1. Issue

1. How could the Plaintiff prove its profit and loss to define defendant’s breach of contract?

1. Rule

1. Reasonable clarity for the breach of contract.

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant lost since Plaintiff could prove its certain loss.
2. I agree with the court about the decision. In the Washington state law, if the plaintiff could show the proof for the reasonable certainty, it will be defendant’s breach of contract. It was right decision.

1. Procedural posture

1. Filed
2. Discovery exchanged
3. Trial
4. Appealed from defendant.

Case 4-11

1. Fact

1. There was 9/11 accident.
2. The government stopped the entire plain for days.
3. Plaintiff had lost in their profit due to the action.
4. Plaintiff asked for recovery from cancellation and inhibited from customers to defendant.
5. Defendant refused to pay.
6. Plaintiff sued defendant.
7. Plaintiff lost from the prior trial.
8. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision which was in favor of defendant due to unreliable damage forecast.
9. Defendant contends 3 reasons why the plaintiff’s data was unreliable; 1) Forecast was unreliable, 2) Plaintiff didn’t project 62 properties revenue, 3) the failure to address other relevant evidence.
10. 1) Forecast was unreliable with 5 reasons; a. forecasts of each hotel had been analyzed by uncertified employees, b. Accountant had an alert that the many of them were not accurate, c. Each forecast only had 5% plus minus scenarios which is not correct, d. Only 1/3 of the property had the accurate amount, e. The accountant admitted that he didn’t care about errors.
11. Plaintiff asserted that, a. the accountant already knew about the 5% standard and he did put in it for his calculation, also, and b. each properties has experienced managers who can be reliable for the data.
12. 2) The accountant of Plaintiff excluded 62 hotels from the whole properties. This could make the accountant to fail to address the “myriad factors” which can affect the financial status.
13. Plaintiff argued that it was merely 13% of the projected loss.
14. Defendant and court believe that even though it was only 13%, it should not be excluded from the exploration of the data.
15. 3) The accountant of Plaintiff didn’t make any effort to analyze other subsequence for the downturn of Plaintiff besides 9/11.
16. Defendant showed that Plaintiff’s customers had been cancelled their trip after 9/11 but they rebooked after certain point which shows that it was not because of the 9/11 action.
17. The accountant testified that he knew the fact for the rebooking but didn’t put them in his calculation. Also, he said that he didn’t try to segregate other potential cases for the downturn of the hotel.

1. Issue

1. Did Plaintiff show reliable proof?

1. Rule

1. Reasonable certainty in Contract law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost due to failure of proving certain damages.
2. First when I read this, I believe that the insurance company should pay out for their loss. But at the end there were facts. I think it might be a fraud not to consider rebooking or other factors. This is all blame on the accountant and plaintiff.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Discovery exchanged
3. Trial
4. Appealed from defendant
5. Summary judgment for the defendant.

Case 4-12

1. Fact

1. On February 18th, Plaintiff arrived to defendant’s property.
2. On February 18th, Defendant sent 29 parties over to Pagoda hotel. They were all holding reservation.
3. On February 18th, there were 16 guests who postpone their stays.
5. The property was over booked, so plaintiff was transferred to lesser quality hotel.
6. Plaintiff asked to move to defendant’s property for a few days.
7. Defendant argued that plaintiff didn’t put any cash deposit, which was avoidable, but Plaintiff responded that he paid with American express company’s guarantee which was accepted as the first night’s deposit for the Plaintiff’s.

1. Issue

1. May Plaintiffs recover punitive damages for breach of contract?

1. Rule

1. Overbooking under contract law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost because there were no reason and jurisdiction with the circumstances.
2. In hospitality business, overbooking is one of the strategies for No-show guests. I would do the same way with the manager did.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Discovery exchanged
3. Motion to dismiss.

Case 4-13

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff reserved Defendant’s property through NOMDA for the event from July 15th.
2. Plaintiff went to San Francisco to visit a convention of NOMDA.
3. Plaintiff had a family group to join.
4. Plaintiff tried to check in to Defendant’s property, but with too many crowds, they were rejected from the hotel.
5. Plaintiff was referred to another property, Jack Tarr Hotel, and vouchers for taxi fare of round trip to the hotel.
6. One of the Plaintiffs came back on 16th to get room from defendant, but the other one stayed at Jack hotel for the next night and moved to Hyatt Regency on 17th.
7. Overall, Plaintiff paid $41.95 less than they expected from the trip.
8. Plaintiff Wells paid $16 parking fee at Defendant’s property, which was not required if he stayed at the property and $22 fare for taxi trip to Chinatown.
9. Plaintiff Hughes spent $4 fare for taxi trip to Chinatown.

1. Issue

1. How much Plaintiff should get recovered?

1. Rule

1. Overbooking under contract law

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff won but couldn’t get enough recovery

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Discovery exchanged
3. Motion to dismiss

Case 4-14

1. Fact

1. Issue

1. Rule

1. Conclusion

1. Procedural Posture

Case 6-1

1. Fact

1. In November of 1992, Plaintiff was on a business trip.
2. The plaintiff was staying at defendants’ property.
3. The defendants’ property was inspected for the pest and had no issue with it.
4. While the plaintiff was staying, she was bitten by the brown recluse spider.
5.  The plaintiff was alleged by that and had severe damage.

1. Issue

1. Should it be granted as summary judgment for defendant or not?

1. Rule

1. Inspection duty owed guest in lodging property

1. Conclusion

1. It was determined as summary judgment in their first trial, but plaintiff appealed. It has been reversed.
2. I believe that the conclusion was right. Since it is hotel property and it is hotel’s duty to prevent safety issues to guests.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Summary judgment
3. Appealed
4. Case reversed.

Case 6-2

1. Fact

1. Defendant and his family were on vacation in Michigan and checked in to Plaintiff’s property on the night of July 25, 1993.
2. On the next morning, defendant was showering and tried to lie on bath tub.
3. When the defendant grabbed the hand bar, it came out and he fell on to the bath tub and had a low back strain.

1. Issue

1. Was it really clear that Plaintiff had lack of its duty? And Is it proper that defendant was awarded that amount of damage pension?

1. Rule

1. Proper maintenance of property of negligence.

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant won.
2. I believe that it is hotel’s duty to maintain proper status of its property.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Case went to trial
3. Jury was in favor of Defendant
4. Plaintiff appealed
5. Still Plaintiff owed to Defendant.

Case 6-3

1. Fact

1. Before July 1974, the Arizona didn’t have a law about safety glass.
2. Defendant’s property was built in 1956.
3. Around 1998, Plaintiff was staying at Defendant’s property.
4. Plaintiff was injured from defendant’s property’s sliding glass door.
5. Before the accident, Defendant was already aware of the riskiness of the glass doors.

1. Issue

1. Did the injury happen because of Plaintiff’s comparative fault?

1. Rule

1. Safeguarding a sliding glass doors.

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant Lost
2. Defendant should prepare for the accident because it was foreseeable.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Case went to trial
3. Plaintiff won

Case 6-4

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff was staying at defendant’s property.
2. Defendant’s property had several inspections including the stairs every three months.
3. There were several dents on the concrete stairs but didn’t make any issues.
4. Plaintiff was heading to defendant’s property office.
5. While Plaintiff was stepping down stairs, there was obstructed by pool maintenance device.
6. Plaintiff was stepping on the side of the stairs.
7. Her heel was capped by a large dent.
8. She fell down with a deep gash.

1. Issue

1. Was the proximate cause of the accident falls on to defendant’s property?

1. Rule

1. Duty for defendant to maintain property.

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant lost.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Evidence exchanged
3. Case ended in the favor for Plaintiff.

Case 6-5

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff and her husband went to have dinner courses.
2. The Plaintiff walked down the hall to proceed to restroom.
3. It was dark in the hall way floor.
4. On the way to the restroom, she was forced to walk on the left side, which was not covered by runner because there were so many people.
5. She fell down due to a wet substance on the floor.

1. Issue

1. Did the restaurant break a breach of duty, negligence?

1. Rule

1. Duty owed guests by wet floor.

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff won.
2. I believe it is the restaurant’s fault not to clean up water.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Summary judgment rejected

Case 14-1

1. Fact

1. Defendants’ property was sued and lost in the previous court which was decided that they didn’t pay minimum wage and failed to pay overtime premium to plaintiff.
2. Defendants appealed that they have two separate properties which income should be considered as two different ones.

1. Issue

1. Should the two different properties be considered as separate properties?

1. Rule

1. FLSA should be determined by the amount of the sales of the property.

1. Conclusion

1. Defendants lost because their properties are consider as one. They are close and sharing advertisement, laundry facilities and phone line.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Defendant lost
3. Appealed
4. Affirmed for the first trial.

Case 14-4

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff was Dominican national who came in with visa to work in the United States.
2. Plaintiff never had any education in the English language.
3. Plaintiff got hired in Sheraton hotel from on or about Oct. 29th, 1970.
4. Plaintiff learned English while she worked in a housekeeping department.
5. Plaintiff applied for an Industry Training Program in April 1973.
6. After her training, she applied for a position as a front office cashier.
7. In 1974, even though there was an opening in the cashier’s department, due to her language barrier, she couldn’t obtain the job since the job required a lot of talking with guests in English.

1. Issue

1. Was she able to perform the job adequately?

1. Rule

1. Employment discrimination depends on the national origin of the candidate

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost since her ability to complete the job could not meet the requirement of the defendant.
2. As a hotel front desk clerk, plaintiff should possess the ability of speaking fluent English. I believe that it was right.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Testimonies
3. Trial
4. Dismissed

Case 14-5

1. Fact

1. Defendant had a policy about a dress code of their employees.
2. Plaintiff had a religion with roots in ancient Egypt, which gave him religious tattoos.
3. Plaintiff believed that covering his tattoos is sin.
4. Plaintiff got a job in defendant’s property from Dec. 2001 as a server.
5. Plaintiff signed defendant’s policy of “Uniform/Appearance” policy.
6. Defendant kept persuading him to cover up his tattoos, but he declined and explained the reason for them.
7. Defendant asked him to wear wrist band or bracelets to cover them.
8. Plaintiff kept refusing to do so, and Defendant fired him.

1. Issue

1. Can plaintiff’s tattoos be accepted in his workplace as religious reason?

1. Rule

1. Reasonable accommodations for employees in Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

1. Conclusion

1. Defendant couldn’t show reasonable evidence.
2. I believe that even though the defendant couldn’t show any evidence for the tattoos, still plaintiff signed the contract about the “Uniform” and I believe that he needs to follow that.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Trial
3. Defendant entitled to summary judgment.

Case 14-6

1. Fact

1. Plaintiff worked at defendant’s property for 20 years.
2. Before 2000, there was no dress code for the defendant’s property.
3. In Feb, 2000, defendant posted a dress code so called “Personal Best”
4. Plaintiff didn’t want to put on make-up which became required for women.
5. Plaintiff couldn’t move to other positions and left her job

1. Issue

1. Was make-up violated Title VII of Civil Right Act?

1. Rule

1. Sex stereotyping under Title VII

1. Conclusion

1. Plaintiff lost since she couldn’t present any evidences that show burdensome of the new policy
2. I believe that there is reason for the policy to come out. I think employees should aware that and follow the policy.

1. Procedural Posture

1. Filed
2. Testimonies.
3. Plaintiff lost.