Scribd
Upload
20 views2 pages

Week 6 Case Study

case study

Uploaded by

tabithagarcia1987
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views2 pages

Week 6 Case Study

case study

Uploaded by

tabithagarcia1987
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Questions 1

Daniels v. Smith
Frank Daniels, a junior auditor for the State of Smith, believes that
he has been fired for being obese. He sues the state and the state’s
head auditor under the law, requesting back pay, damages, and an
injunction against the head state auditor forbidding him from firing
or demoting Daniels. What constitutional provisions would allow
Congress to impose POPA on the State of Smith?

The Fourteenth Amendment is one provision that could apply in the Daniels
v. Smith case. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying
equal protection. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the equal protection
clause guarantees equal protection to employees and prevents them from
discrimination against on things such as height, weight, age, etc. (Pagnattaro
et al., 2022). It states that no state can deprive a person of life liberty or
property (Pagnattaro et al., 2022)

Congress could also use the Commerce Clause Article 1 Section 8, which
allows them to regulate business activity giving Congress the power to force
POPA on the state (Pagnattaro, 2022).

Looking at section 2 of the ORA it states that it’s a violation under federal law
for employers to discriminate against employees’ weight, except when
weight is a bona fide occupation requirement. Since Daniel is an auditor, his
weight requirement wouldn’t pertain in a situation where weight is a bona
fide occupational requirement. Therefore, because Daniel is being
discriminated against due to his weight, he is entitled to sue under section 4
to receive relief and back pay.

Question 2

League Against Obesity Discrimination (LAOD) v. the Department of


Labor
Meanwhile, the Department of Labor promulgates the following
regulation:
Reg A: A “bona fide occupational requirement” is any requirement
that, in the eyes of a
reasonable employer, is reasonably necessary to perform its
business operations, taking into account reasonable customer
preferences. The League believes that this regulation is too lenient
and is contrary to the intention of the statute. It sues the
Department of Labor on the day the regulation is promulgated. Does
it have standing?
Yes, I do believe that the LAOD has standing due to the regulations being too
lenient, which would cause discrimination against obese people if it were to
stand. Organizations such as LAOD frequently represent members who would
be subjected to discrimination in the workforce. The LAOD could argue that
this lenient standing could allow employers to unjustly discriminate against
employees by considering customer preferences which would go against the
original intent of POPA in the first place. Under Article III, in order to have
standing, you must have injury or injury, in fact, redressability and causation
(Brown & Croouppen, 2024). To have causation there must be a connection
between injury and what is being challenged. Redressability occurs when
the injury may be addressed with a favorable outcome. Injury in fact has
standing when the plaintiff suffers an injury that infringes on protected rights
such as civil rights (Brown & Crouppen, 2024).

In cases such as Hunt v. Washington State, Apple Advertising Comm’n


agencies can assert the rights of members. For an organization to have
standing it must bring suit on behalf of its members, members must be able
to bring suit themselves and must be protecting the organization’s purpose.
Therefore, because LAOD is representing its members they can claim who
would likely be discriminated against based on weight, they have legal
standing to bring a suit against the Department of Labor.

References

Brown & Crouppen. (2024, August 26). Legal standing: What is standing &
why it matters. https://www.brownandcrouppen.com/blog/what-is-standing/

Pagnattaro, M. A., Cahoy, D. R., Magid, J. M., & Shedd, P. J. (2022). The legal
and regulatory environment of business. McGraw-Hill.11

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Standing. Legal Information Institute.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

Substantial interest: Standing. Justia Law. (n.d.).


https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/20-substantial-interest-
standing.html

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy