Business Law Conference - Research Paper Example

RUNNING HEADING: Business Law Conference Business Law Conference Number Business Law Conference Case Analysis of Ricci v. DeStefano CaseFacts In the case Ricci Vs DeStefano was a decision given by the US Supreme Court in a case brought from 12 city firefighters (11 were Whites and 1 Hispanic) against the New Haven, Connecticut Fire Department alleging that they were discriminated in their workplace and not given promotions mainly due to racial discrimination in spite of scoring well in the test results.

The New Haven Department did not validate the test results mainly because none of the Black fire fighters scored well and hence could not be considered for promotions. The City Department officials claimed that if they validated the results they could in turn be sued by a minority community for developing a practice that disadvantaged the minority groups (Supreme Court of the US 2008). IssuesThe legal question asked in this case was whether the approach taken by the Department by choosing disparate treatment to avoid disparate impact was justified in these circumstances.

HoldingThe use of disparate treatment as an alternative to disparate impact has to be strongly justified based on evidences and reasonable standards (remedial action). The Judge rejected the claim that the Department did not discriminate but said that the Department was involved in making a decision based on race, which was more like disparate treatment. IF there is a conflict between disparate treatment and disparate impact, then disparate treatment should be avoided based on clear and outright evidences and standards.

Rule Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964: “Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amend several sections of Title VII.”RationaleBy invalidating the results, there was an impermissible disparate impact, which in turn amounted to a racial preference, and was against Title VII. The Court gave a decision in favor of the 12 firefighters claiming that invalidation of their test results was a violation under Title VII.

Concurring OpinionAnother judge mentioned that the court failed to provide a clarification between the provisions of disparate impact under Title VII and the equal protection clause under the US Constitution (14th Amendment). Other evidences suggested that there were many flaws in the testing system adopted by New Haven, and if the testing system was better, the results outcome was have not been skewed. EvaluationThe court found the racial decision making adopted by New Haven Department as discriminatory and hence had to reinstate the results.

However, it was also found that the testing system adopted by New Haven was improper compared to that of other Departments. However, this was not a basis invalidating the results obtained by the White staff, as they were provided an apparently similar ground as that of the Black firefighters. There is a greater need for the employers to ensure that their policies do not produce a wrong racial outcome, which is discriminatory. Case Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionFactsThis was a decision given with regards to a corporation that wanted to broadcast a movie on Hilary Clinton within 30 days of conduct of general elections.

According to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA 2002) political parties and corporations are not supposed to present electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and within 60 days of a general election. Citizens United a not for profit organization, was held for conduct of violation of section 203 of BCRA 2002 by the United States District Court of DC. However, the Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the lower court and overruled the decisions given in Austin v.

Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) (Supreme Court of the US 2008). IssuesThe main issue that was present in this was whether section 203 of the BCRA 2002 which prohibited political parities, corporations and unions from electioneering communication within 30 days of an election was infringing upon the First Amendment of the Constitution (prohibiting private parties from making public statements). Holding The Court found that as per the intentions of the constitution of the US, interests of both corporations and individuals should be protected with equal vigor.

The First Amendment does not attempt to prohibit speech based on the credentials of the speaker. Here the expenditure made by a political party on a movie was a mode of expression and if it was prohibited, it was equivalent to prohibiting expression of speech. The First Amendment purposefully restricts the government from interfering with the rights of expression of private parties, and the courts have to ensure that there is certain amount of fairness. The Decision given in Austin and McConnell was overrule to certain extents.

RuleSection 203 of the BCRA 2002 restricts private corporations and unions from electioneering communications including cable or satellite broadcasts within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary election. RationaleThe US Supreme Court overruled the decisions given in both Austin and McConnell that concern the validity of Section 203. Whilst the broadcast of the movie was found to be violating the BCRA, the advertisement of the movie Hilary was not infringing. The Supreme Court found that the section 203 of the BCRA 2002 was infringing upon the first Amendment as it discriminated between a corporation and an individual, and the flavor of the First Amendment did not intent such discrimination.

Concurring OpinionThe decision was passed closely 5-4 split in favor of Citizens United and hence there were a few concurrencies. One judge felt that the First Amendment did not apply for media per se and it applied only for the press media and written communication in specific. Another judge felt that there could be greater chances of retaliation of such communications and hence when elections are nearing, they should be prohibited. EvaluationIn general, it would be ideal if the flavor and the intentions of the First Amendment are researched with greater depth.

This decision was given by a very close split decision and most of the dissenting judges felt that the First Amendment may apply to only freedom of speech and written text rather than media per se. The case also did not go into greater intricacies and rather dealt with the issues superficially. BibliographyMallor, J. & Barnes, A. J. (2008). Business Law: The Ethics, Global and E-Commerce Environment, 14th Ed, St. Louis: McGraw Hill. Supreme Court of the US (2008). Ricci v. DeStefano Case.

Retrieved on March 31, 2012, from Web. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdfSupreme Court of the US (2010). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Retrieved on March 31, 2012, from Web. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf