Author Question: This high profile case was initiated under the EEOC's Systemic Class Action Program with an EEOC ... (Read 56 times)

kwoodring · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

This high profile case was initiated under the EEOC's Systemic Class Action Program with an EEOC Commissioner publicly commenting on the EEOC's suit against Peoplemark. Review the facts to see how the EEOC used administrative subpoenas to obtain over 18,000 pages of documents in 2006 and 2007 from Peoplemark, and then filed a complaint in the federal court on May 29, 2008 . Where did the EEOC go wrong in this litigation?

Question 2

Arriving at a restaurant, Max gives his car keys to the valet. When the valet returns the car three hours later, it has a large, new dent. The valet says he did not cause it. Max sues the valet service.
a. The burden is on the valet service to prove it did not cause the dent.
b. The burden is on Max to prove that the valet service caused the dent.
c. The valet service is strictly liable for harm to Max's car.
d. The valet service has no liability to Max, regardless of how the dent was caused.
e. The valet service is only liable for gross negligence.

aham8f · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The court stated that, It appears the EEOC was basing its whole case on some
early statements made by an officer of the company coupled with the facts the Sherri Scott had not been hired.. The court pointed out that Ms. Scott was a two-time felon with convictions for housebreaking and larceny. And, in footnote 3 (not presented in the edited version of the case) the court noted that Ms. Scott was sent back to prison on September 21, 2009 for a new conviction for felonious assault. Certainly it is critically important to our country to promote the rehabilitation of criminal offenders by providing educational and employment opportunities after they serve their sentences. And, it is clear that a blanket company policy not to hire any person with a criminal record would have a disparate impact on a class of African Americans. With such an important systemic issue for society, the EEOC should have made certain that it had a solid case before filing the complaint and making its public assertions about Peoplemark. The court found the EEOC liable for attorney fees and costs for the period no later than the end of 2009 when the EEOC knew it could not produce an expert.

Answer to Question 2

.A