Legal Search

Research Title: Trial Level Brief

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT of NY

EASTERN DIVISION

)

Plaintiff,

)

)
Case No.

)

Defendant.

)

_____________________________
)

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.
INTRODUCTION

II.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

III.
ARGUMENT

A. This Court should grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because ….

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a motion for summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

[Explain governing law here in a persuasive light if possible]

1. Full-sentence headings that outline your arguments

a. [first sub-argument]

[support/law]

[draw out argument with facts]

b. [second sub-argument]

[support/law]

[draw out argument with facts]

2. [second argument]

[support/law]

[draw out argument with facts]

IV.
CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing arguments and authorities, Defendant urges this Court to grant Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment.

Dated this 22th day of February, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW FIRM NAME

By: ________________________________

Individual Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a copy of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the above-referenced action has been mailed first class to:

Dated this 27th day of February, 2017.

By:___________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

Ann Beck

)

Plaintiff,
)

)

)
No. ____________

)

Kelpen Knab LLP,

)

Defendant.
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

______________________________)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Ann Beck, by and through her attorney, Michael H. Koby, alleges the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil action seeking relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., to redress unlawful discrimination. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the actions giving rise to plaintiff’s claim alleged below were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

PARTIES

3. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff Ann Beck was, and still is, a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. Louis, Missouri.

4. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, each partner of the defendant law firm Kelpen Knab LLP was, and still is, a resident of St. Louis, Missouri.

BACKGROUND

5. Plaintiff was, at the time of the events leading to this Complaint, a third-year law student at Washington University School of Law and had applied for a position as a first-year associate at Kelpen Knab LLP.

6. On August 10, 2017, Ann Beck interviewed for the position of first-year associate at Kelpen Knab LLP.

7. Plaintiff was interviewed by seven male attorneys employed by Defendant.

8. On August 10, 2017, during Plaintiff’s day of interviews at Kelpen Knab LLP, Plaintiff was interviewed by Mr. Alex Herrera, the hiring partner at Kelpen Knab LLP.

9. While being interviewed over lunch, Plaintiff was asked questions about her plans to have children and her boyfriend’s attitudes concerning her working long hours and traveling with male attorneys. The male applicants who were interviewed for the same position were not asked similar questions.

10. On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff received notice from Kelpen Knab LLP that she had not received an offer of employment.

11. Plaintiff, alleging unlawful discrimination, timely filed a complaint against Kelpen Knab LLP with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on September 4, 2017, and was issued a Right to Sue letter on January 4, 2018.

12. Gender-stereotyped interview questions were a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision not to hire Plaintiff.

13. Defendant willfully discriminated against Plaintiff, violating Title VII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages in the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), together with any accrued interest, the attendant costs of this action, and whatever additional damages the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Falcone & Brockston

By:
___________________

Federal Bar Number 334678

111 Central Ave., Suite 210

St. Louis, MO

(314) 111-3230

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated:
January 5, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

Ann Beck,

)

Plaintiff,
)

)
Case No. 4:18CV1012 RWS

)

Kelpen Knab LLP,

)

)
Defendant.
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
______________________________)

ANSWER

Comes now Defendant, by and through its attorney, Amy Marks, for its answer to the Complaint in the above-captioned action:

1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions as to which no answer is required. Subject to the foregoing, Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 1.

2. Defendant denies that it acted improperly, giving rise to any claim for relief. Subject to the foregoing, Defendant admits that venue is proper.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 12, and 13.

5. Defendant does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 and 11.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s demand for relief be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Battle & Boothby

By:
____________________

Amy Marks, Esq.

Fed. Bar No. 324665

1264 Brentwood Drive

St. Louis, MO 63136

(314) 862-5679

Attorneys for Kelpen Knab LLP

Dated:
January 8, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 8, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

Michael H. Esq.

Falcone & Brockston
111 Central Ave., Suite 210

St. Louis, MO 63130

(314) 111-3230

Battle & Boothby

By:
________________

Amy Marks, Esq.
Fed. Bar No. 324665

1264 Brentwood Drive

St. Louis, MO 63136

(314) 862-5679

Attorneys for Kelpen Knab LLP
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION
Ann Beck,

)

)
Plaintiff,
)

)
Case No. 4:18CV1012 RWS

)
Kelpen Knab LLP,

)

Defendant.
)

______________________________)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Ann Beck, by her attorney, Michael H. Koby, asks the Court to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Under the mixed-motive analysis of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Defendant Kelpen Knab LLP unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
Falcone & Brockston
By:
___________________

Federal Bar Number 33678

111 Central Ave., Suite 210

St. Louis, MO 63130

(314) 111-3230
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: February 22, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

Amy Marks, Esq.
Battle & Boothby
1264 Brentwood Drive
St. Louis, MO 63136
(314) 862-5679
Falcone & Brockston
By:
___________________

Federal Bar Number 33678
111 Central Ave., Suite 210

St. Louis, MO 63130

(314) 111-3230
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION
Ann Beck,

)

)
Plaintiff,
)

)
Case No. 4:18CV1012 RWS

)
Kelpen Knab LLP,

)

)
Defendant.
)

______________________________)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ann Beck, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the named plaintiff in this action. In addition, I am a third-year law student at Washington University School of Law. I make this affidavit in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment.

2. After graduating from Yale University in 2009 with a Masters in International Relations, I began working as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Department of State. At the State Department, I wrote numerous analytical articles and advised policy makers on issues related to my portfolio. After two years with the State Department, I moved to St. Louis, Missouri for a position in the government affairs division of a St. Louis-based international company. There, I had frequent opportunities to work closely with company executives and the legal department in drafting position papers and in advocating favorable legislation.

3. In law school, I finished my first two years ranked in the top twenty percent (20%) of my class. Furthermore, I wrote on for the Washington University Global Studies Law Review and served as a primary editor. In addition to my law school work, I was heavily involved in the International Law Society as a 1L representative and then as president during my 2L year. During the first semester of my third year, I participated in Washington University’s International Justice and Conflict Resolution Field Placement at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where I served as a judicial clerk. I participated in the Civil Rights and Community Justice Clinic, working at an immigration law firm during the first semester of my second year, then interned for the Department of Justice during my second semester. During the summer of 2016, I interned in Brussels for the legal department of the European headquarters of Solutia Inc., working primarily on antitrust and M&A issues. During the summer of 2017, I worked as a summer associate for Picard, Kentz & Rowe LLP, a firm in Washington, DC.

4. I received an offer to return as a first-year associate from Picard, Kentz & Rowe LLP, but decided instead that I wished to remain in St. Louis following graduation.

5. In July 2017, I submitted my resume to the Career Services Offices at Washington University School of Law to be considered for a position at Kelpen Knab LLP. I was granted a screening interview on campus and was then invited for a day of call-back interviews. On August 10, 2017, I met with Lauren Nichols in the morning and then was walked around and met others in the office. I had three separate interviews at the firm with three male attorneys before participating in an interview over lunch with four male attorneys.

6. The interviewers present at lunch were Mr. Alex Herrera, Mr. Daniel Cahan, Mr. Jim McQuade, and Mr. Andrew Watkins. During lunch, Mr. Herrera noticed a ring on the fourth finger of my left hand and asked me if I was married. On finding out that I am not married, but that I have a serious boyfriend and plans to marry, Mr. Herrera then asked me what my boyfriend would think of my working long hours at the firm and traveling with male attorneys. I told him that my boyfriend is an attorney who understands the demands of the job and who would have no problem with my working long hours or traveling with male colleagues.

7. Mr. Herrera also asked me whether I planned to have children and, if so, how I would manage professional and personal responsibilities. Before I could answer, Mr. Herrera went on to describe situations in which he had hired and trained female attorneys, only for them to leave the firm to raise children. The other gentlemen who were present, Mr. Daniel Cahan, Mr. Jim McQuade, and Mr. Andrew Watkins, did not say anything about Mr. Herrera’s questions or my responses. Mr. Herrera concluded by stating that he loses at least one attorney each year to “the baby.”

8. These questions made me feel uncomfortable and concerned because I felt that Mr. Herrera was questioning my commitment to practicing law and working long hours simply because I am a woman.

9. On August 31, 2017, I received a rejection letter from Kelpen Knab LLP.

/s/
_____________________________

Ann Beck

Sworn before me this

5th day of February, 2018

/s/

Jamie Roggen

Notary Public

No. 9876543

Certified in St. Louis, MO

Commission expires on 1/1/21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 5, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

Amy Marks, Esq.
Battle & Boothby
1264 Brentwood Drive
St. Louis, MO 63136
(314) 862-5679
Falcone & Brockston
By:
___________________

Federal Bar Number 33678
111 Central Ave., Suite 210

St. Louis, MO 63130
(314) 111-3230
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION
Ann Beck,

)

)
Plaintiff,
)

)
Case No. 4:18CV1012 RWS

)
Kelpen Knab LLP,

)

)
Defendant.
)

______________________________)

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant, Kelpen Knab LLP, by its attorney, Amy Marks, asks the Court to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

While Defendant Kelpen Knab LLP agrees that the Price Waterhouse mixed-motive analysis, rather than the McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis, is the correct framework, Defendant’s actions do not constitute illegal discrimination. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

/s/
_____________________________
Amy Marks, Esq.
Fed. Bar No. 324665
Battle & Boothby

1264 Brentwood Drive

St. Louis, MO 63136
(314) 862-5679
Dated: February 22, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Battle & Boothby

By:
________________
Amy Marks, Esq.
Fed. Bar No. 324665

1264 Brentwood Drive

St. Louis, MO 63136

(314) 862-5679

Attorneys for Kelpen Knab LLP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION
Ann Beck,

)

)
Plaintiff,
)

)
Case No. 4:18CV1012 RWS

)
Kelpen Knab LLP,

)

)
Defendant.
)

______________________________)

DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY STEPHEN D. MEYERS

STEPHEN D. MEYERS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the managing partner of the law firm Kelpen Knab LLP. I have been employed as an attorney by Kelpen Knab LLP for thirty-four years. I became a partner in October 1985, and was elected managing partner in 2008.

2. Kelpen Knab LLP employs ninety attorneys, thirty-one of whom are partners.

3. Attorneys at Kelpen Knab LLP work long hours, as they do at most law firms. The average number of hours billed by first-year associates at Kelpen Knab LLP is twenty-one hundred hours.

4. To meet our hiring needs, we have a Lawyer Personnel Committee that consists of seven attorneys. The Committee follows a standard procedure. Every year it sends a member to several different law schools in several cities to conduct screening interviews of third-year law students. From those screening interviews, the Committee selects twelve students to invite for call-back interviews. During the call-back, each candidate interviews with every member of the Lawyer Personnel Committee and has lunch with at least two Committee members. The Committee meets after all of the candidates have been interviewed to discuss their impressions and the qualifications of the candidates. The Committee then votes on which candidate will be recommended to receive an offer. The chair of the Committee presents the Committee’s recommendation at the next partnership meeting, and the partnership votes. In all my years with Kelpen Knab LLP, I have never known of an instance where the partnership did not adopt the Committee’s recommendation.

5. The chair of the Lawyer Personnel Committee is Mr. Alex Herrera, who is the hiring partner at Kelpen Knab LLP. The other members of the Committee, in order of seniority, are Mr. Daniel Cahan, Mr. Jim McQuade, Mr. Andrew Watkins, Mr. Benjamin Rose, Mr. Christian Spletzer, and Mr. Christian Hicks.

6. Each interviewer completes a standard evaluation at the conclusion of each interview. The evaluation asks the interviewer to rank the candidate on several different criteria, including communication skills, ability to fit in with the other attorneys at the firm, and the overall impression of the candidate. There is also a section for comments.

7. One offer is extended. If that candidate rejects our offer, the Committee meets again to decide which of the other candidates should receive an offer.

8. This year, twelve students were invited for call-back interviews. Of those twelve, six were male and six were female. Seven students accepted their invitations; six of those were male.

9. On August 23, 2017, the partnership voted to accept the Lawyer Personnel Committee’s recommendation to extend an offer to Robert Cassola. Robert Cassola maintained an “A” average during his first two years at Georgetown Law School, ranking him in the top 5% of his class. Cassola is also the managing editor of the prestigious Georgetown Law Review. The Committee sent a letter to Robert Cassola making him an offer to join our firm as a first-year associate. He accepted our offer on August 28, 2017, at which time we sent letters to the other six candidates, including Plaintiff, notifying them that we would be unable to consider them further for a position at that time.

/s/
_________________

Stephen D. Meyers

Sworn before me this

5th day of February, 2018

/s/

Joseph C. Broyan

Notary Public

No. 3456789

Certified in St. Louis, MO

Commission expires on 1/1/20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Battle & Boothby
By:
________________
Amy Marks, Esq.
Fed. Bar No. 324665

1264 Brentwood Drive

St. Louis, MO 63136

(314) 862-5679

Attorneys for Kelpen Knab LLP

STATUTORY APPENDIX

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a): Unlawful employment practices.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(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; 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.

�Plaintiff admits there were legitimate reasons which may have factored into Defendant’s decision not to hire Plaintiff, including that Plaintiff’s grade point average at Washington University School of Law was lower than that of Robert Cassola, the candidate who received the position, at Georgetown Law School and that Plaintiff, unlike Cassola, was not the managing editor of the Georgetown Law Review. Plaintiff does not allege that discrimination was the sole factor in Defendant’s employment decision; therefore, as both parties have stipulated, the pretext standard enunciated in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is inapplicable to this case.

### I want you to focus more on these cases Barbano and Price Waterhouse than the other cases, also the ARGUEMNT should be 6 pages and be sure the plaintiff Ann Beck should be win

{The argument should be like this}

1) What is my argument

Overview paragraph

· What is my ultimate conclusion?

· Favorable explanation of the rule

· Give details that help my arguments

2) Argument

· What rules support this argument?

· What cases support this argument?

· How are the facts of my case similar to these other cases?

3) Opposing party

· What will they argue?

· What cases and rules to they have to support their argument?

· How can I use the facts to show that my case is different and my arguments are better?

4) Conclusion

· Restate my argument

· My position is proper because . . .

How to form Argument Headings?

· RULE (legal conclusion) + (applied to) FACTS of your case

PLANTIF ARGUEMNT

· The Defendant has not met the burden of proving it it would have made the same decision about Ann Beck, absent the discriminatory factor.

· Gender discrimination was a motivating factor in Defendant’s decision not to hire Ann Beck.

What should come after the heading?

· 1. RULE (case law – CITE)

· 2. RULE EXPLANATION (case law-CITE)

· 3. RULE APPLICATION (to our case)

· PEER REVIEW YOUR ARGUMENTS!

Only use 5 cases, do not use other case of websites or the Internet, you should put the case name and citation case that I gave you!!!

Use the template to get its help!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

)

, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No.

)

, )

Defendant. )

_____________________________ )

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

III. ARGUMENT

A. This Court should grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because ….

[Explain governing law here in a persuasive light if possible]

1. Full-sentence headings that outline your arguments

a. [first sub-argument]

[support/law]

[draw out argument with facts]

b. [second sub-argument]

[support/law]

[draw out argument with facts]

2. [second argument]

[support/law]

[draw out argument with facts]

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing arguments and authorities, Defendant urges this Court to grant Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment.

Dated this 22th day of February, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW FIRM

NAME

By: ________________________________

Individual Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Opposing Counsel

LAW FIRM

111 Central Street

St. Louis, MO 63130

Dated this 27th day of February, 2017.

By:___________________________

This argument is imp

tant 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
:

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

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 from where you took this

Mixed –motive cases-in the event that the plaintiff can convince the trier that an impermissible criterion was utilized in the employment decision, a different analysis in turn takes place. The plaintiff must then provide more evidence in addition to the not onerous factors. When the plaintiff wishes to present the case as a mixed –motive case, they must therefore prove that an illegitimate factor was significant in the employment decision. In the event that the plaintiff manages to convince the fact finder that illegitimate reasons played a critical in decisions made, the employee is then successful in proving their case. The employee is in this case entitled to succeed to the employer’s opportunity to prove its affirmative. This can be related to the Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 246, 109 S.Ct at 1788.

The Civil rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071. Section 107 of the Act that dealt with split opinions. Title VII states that:

“[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when an complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice even though other factors motivated the practice.”

Congress also added that when a plaintiff is able to prove that an impermissible factor was the motivating factor for a particular employment practice but the defendant proves affirmative defense a declaratory grant or injunctive relief can be made by the court as well as the attorney’s fees and cost. Civil Righgts of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166 §107 (b) (3)( to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000E-5(G)(2)(B)(i)even though the award of damages or issuing of orders that require admissions, reinstatement, hiring, promotion or payment is forbidden

(1)

There is a decline in expressing the opinions non the meaning of the 1991 act as it conflicts among the EEOC and other courts in regards to retroactivity. (Mojica v. Fannet Co. 779F.Supp. 94, 99 (N.D.III.1991)

(2) However, regardless of the Act’s retroactivity a similar result on the mixed motives analysis is attained.

(3) In relation to the Human Rights Law, New York is yet to express their views on the new act hence it would be absurd to assume that the courts without legislative action would incorporate the statute in the Human Rights Jurisprudence.

(4) Federal laws are treated differently to Human Rights laws.

(5) Difficulties in the case and controversies in the remedial portion of the act allows the plaintiff without personal stake to act as a private attorney in the bid to attain declaratory or injunctive relief.

In relation to the ADEA and title vii, employers are prohibited from making decisions with relation to age or any other prohibited factors. “Direct” and “indirect” evidence under the mixed-motive case does not refer to the quality of the evidence presented but the manner through which the cases are presented. The only scenario that would be regarded as being direct evidence is an admission by the defendant that she could not acquire a position bat the company due to the discriminatory questions she was asked at the interview.

The essential questions of fact include:

1) Were the questions asked by the interviewer the motivating factors for Ann Becks’s lack of employment?

2) Assuming that Kelpen Knab LLP discrimination was a motivating factor for Ann Beck’s lack of employment, would the same action be taken in the absence of the impermissible factor?

3) What is the amount of damage that would adequately compensate Ann for her economic losses?

4) What is the amount of damage that would adequately compensate Ann for her non-economic losses?

The plaintiff is however under Title VII and § 1983 required to establish that she was a victim of intentional discrimination. These can be presented in two ways; (1) direct proof of discrimination and (2) through the indirect evidence through the McDonell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), burden-shifting method of proof.

·
In the absenc of the dicer Imation the defendant will still not hire M.S

Beck.

You should talk about qualifications of the plaintiff for example the experience

Lam case or barbano case

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Legal Search ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now