HC Employment Discrimination Presentation

Liebeck v. McDonaldsFacts
• The trip through the drive
through
• Mrs. Liebeck’s Grandson was
driving
• Parked during the incident
• Burns covering 16% of her body
• 6% were 3rd degree
Before Court
Costs Incurred
• Medical Costs $10,500
• Future Medical Costs $2,500
• Lost Wages $5,000
Settlement Requests
• Request $20,000
• McDonalds offered $800
• Mediation $27,500
Liebeck’s Point of View
Sued for gross
negligence
Coffee at 180-190 is
defective product
Served in a defectively
designed container
Ineffective warning
McDonalds Duty to
inspect and deliver a
safe product
McDonald’s Point of
View
IF THE PLAINTIFF
WAS HARMED
MCDONALDS WAS
NOT AT FAULT
SHE SPILLED THE
COFFEE ON HERSELF
LIEBECK WAS AN
EGGSHELL PLAINTIFF
SHE DID NOT
DISROBE CAUSING
FURTHER HARM
MCDONALDS ACTED
WITH REASONABLE
CARE
Proceedings
Judge: Robert H. Scott
Liebeck
McDonalds
McDonald’s Quality Assurance
Manager
Optimal flavor
3rd degree burns would form in
3-15 seconds
700 incidents in 10 years
Photos of the injuries
Standard throughout the coffee
business
Statistically insignificant
Other restaurant dangers
Outcome
Chart Title
3,000,000
• Judge ruled
• 20% Liebeck’s Fault
• 80% McDonald’s Fault
• Damages
• Compensatory $160,000
• Punitive $2.7 million
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
• Reduced to $640,000
• Appeal and Settlement $500,000
500,000
0
Jury’s Award
Compensatory Damages
Judge’s Award
Punitive Damages
Settlement
Undisclosed Amount
Implications
• McDonalds lowered their coffee
temperature
• Media
• Letterman
• Seinfeld
• Tort Reform
• Hot Coffee
References
• Burtka, Allison. “Liebeck v. McDonald’s.” The American Museum of Tort Law, 21 Sept. 2018,
www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/.
• Cain, Kevin G. “The McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit.” Journal of Consumer and Commercial Law, 2007.
• “Coffee Seinfeld.” Giphy, giphy.com/gifs/coffee-seinfeld-1JYBDMEg0hEwE.
• Dedman, Jim. “Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants: The Original Coffee Product Liability Case.” DRI Today, 15 Apr. 2015,
www.gwblawfirm.com/liebeck-v-mcdonalds-restaurants-original-coffee-product-liability-case/.
• Dedman, Jim. “The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ.” Abnormal Use The Stella Liebeck McDonalds Hot
Coffee Case FAQ Comments, abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html.
• Saladoff, Susan, director. Hot Coffee. HBO, 2011.
• “The Maestro.” Seinfeld, created by Jerry Seinfeld, and Larry David, season 7, episode 3, 5 Oct. 1995.
• “Top Ten List, Dr. Kevorkian Tips for Summer: Number Four. Take a Bunch of Friends to McDonald’s and Pour Scalding
Coffee on Each Other.” The Late Show with David Letterman , performance by David Letterman, CBS Television
Broadcast, 29 June 1995.
Apple v. FBI
December 2015
Jackie Beng & Matthew Phomma
Facts
The Argument between Apple and FBI started after
the FBI wanted to search through an iPhone which
was conficated during the San Bernardino Attack in
December 2015
The FBI was not able to access the data on the iPhone that belong to San Bernadino Health
Department – BUT, this phone was used by a Criminal involved in the attack: Syed Farook
So they asked Apple to Unlock the iPhone
The judge said to apple that it is “Reasonable technical assistance”
Apple Objected the order claiming that it is illegal and unconstitutional and that granting an
order to go through someone phone like that, could endangered all Apple Product’s security
Legal Issues
The legal issue in this case was that it invades the
Users privacy and allowing government overreach into
that users privacy.
This violates the first and fourth amendment as well
as “Intrusion” into someone life
FBI wanted to apple to unlock the iPhone to
investigate
Apple wants to protect their products and Users
Privacy
Apple POV
Apple annd other big tech companies (Google, Facebook etc) argued that
doing this will endangered peoples privacy
Violates the first and fourth amendment rights (Freedom of speech //
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure by the government
This “Program (System Information File) could
slip into the wrong hands
The FBI/GOVT could repeatedly keep asking
Apple to help investigations, causing
technologies companies(google, facebook,
and etc) to work for the government
(Invading users privacy)
Loosing reputation (Privacy, Encryptions Data etc)
FBI POV
FBI Wanted to prevent the iPhone from erasing
Wanted Apple to unlock the iPhone since it would take
up too much time
FBI believed Apple was only worrying about the profit
and used protecting privacy as a front
Reportes say that FBI was “Simply asking for something
that would have an impact on one device”
According to the family of Fursiller Lee Rigby, a victim in
the shooting, they said ‘Apple was protecting a murder’s
privacy at the expense of public safety”
Joinathan Thmpson | Homeland Security
Outcomes
Hearing was
delayed then
after the
government
found a thirdparty to
unlock the
IPhone
Apple stood
firm in its
support for
civil liberty and refused
the demands
of FBI
Apple now
understand the
method FBI
uses can go
into the wrong
hand
The FBI was
able to
achieve their
goal but there
are still doubts
regarding
Apple security
meassure
Courts Descision / Reasoning
The case was dismissed after
months of unsuccessful fight
against Apple / FBI got what they
wanted through third party
“From the beginning, we
objected to the FBI’s demand that
apple build a backdoor into
iPhones because we believed it
was wrong and would set a
dangerous precedent
Both side were Winner and Losers
The reason being, going through
someone phone not only invades
Apple privacy aggremets but also
violates first and fourth amendment
rights. The FBI still got what they
wanted but Apple stood firm with
its support for Civil Liberty
Impact on Society
After the case the public nature of this battle
encouraged other tech companies to improve their
security.
Apple reputation has gone up in the community by
protecting the user privacy in the case.
Society is also worrying about the security of Apple
since the government used a third-party source to
break into the iPhone without the help of Apple.
Sources
https://epic.org/documents/apple-v-fbi-2/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/apple-vsfbi/#:~:text=Facts%20of%20the%20case,Bernardino%20attacks%20in%20December%20
2015.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fbi-v-apple-zachary-zynda/
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-fbi-explainer-20160329snap-htmlstory.html
Sources – Pictures
https://usatodayhss.com/2016/fbi-v-apple-a-scary-case – Slide 2
https://superrare.com/artwork-v2/we-respect-your-privacy-19649 – Slide 3
https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-celebrates-steve-jobs-legacy/169651/ – Slide 4
https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/photo/29198 – Slide 5
https://www.dailynews.com/2016/04/29/after-apple-vs-fbi-more-reasons-to-be-wary-in-privacy-fight/ – Slide
6
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-fbi-explainer-20160329-snap-htmlstory.html Slide 7
https://www.macworld.com/article/334282/apple-is-a-leader-in-privacy-but-theres-still-work-to-be-donewith-the-app-store-email-and-more.html – Slide 8
https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/11/new-study-reveals-the-top-problems-people-face-with-apple-products-ineach-state/
Valeriya ✓
8
My Home
Courses
Catalog and Study Tools
Rental Options
College Success Tips
Career Success Tips
? Help
«
Give Feedback
CENGAGE MINDTAP
Prepare: Read Chapter 30: Employment Discrimination
ng.cengage.com
Employment Discrimination
Chapter Introduction
30-1 Employment Opportunity Before 1964
30-1a The United States Constitution
30-1b Civil Rights Act of 1866
30-1c Equal Pay Act of 1963
30-2 The Civil Rights Act of 1964
30-2a Prohibited Activities
30-2b Religion
30-2c Sex
30-2d Attractiveness
30-2e Family Responsibility Discrimination
30-2f Sexual Orientation
AA
Q Search this course
?
×
30
000
000
+
A-Z
A+