Case Study Argumentative

Hi doctor,
According to the assignment action items. It tells that the problems should be analyzed into 2 groups, each group takes 3 cases and since that you did not make any group. I chose to analyze two cases assumed that it would be my duty or more, because in the group I will analyze only one case.

Case 4: Jarold Daniel Friedman worked as a temporary computer contractor for a pharmaceutical warehouse. The warehouse offered him a permanent position, but the warehouse required that he get a mumps vaccine, grown in chicken embryos, as a condition of his permanent employment. Friedman, a vegan, believed that the vaccination would violate his religious beliefs and declined to be vaccinated. As a result, the warehouse withdrew its offer of employment. Friedman claimed that the warehouse discriminated against him on the basis of religion. 1- Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant) The plaintiff: Jarold Daniel Friedman.

The defendant: The warehouse.
2-Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. Each of plaintiff and the defendant had logical reasons but whenever someone has profoundly held moral values, employers must not force their staff to comply with an arbitrary policy in conflict. Policies should allow for exceptions, just as the law does, because every circumstance cannot be predicted

3-Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear. 4-Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.

The law:
(the employers did not have the right to refuse to hire or employ a person because of a conflict between the person’s religious belief or observance and any employment requirement, unless the employer demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance, but is unable to reasonably accommodate the religious belief or observance without undue hardship) So, according to the law, the plaintiff has the right to a full owed ​​to win the case, because of: a.) the defendant did not provide a work environment free from discrimination and retaliation to the plaintiff. b.) the defendant discriminate against Plaintiff based upon his religious views. c.) the defendant failed in reasonably accommodate the Plaintiff’s religious views. Case 5: Jennifer Erickson sued her employer, Bartell Drug Company, contending that its decision not to cover prescription contraceptives under its employee prescription drug plan constituted sex discrimination. Bartell argued that its decision was not sex discrimination because contraceptives were preventive, were voluntary, and did not treat an illness. 1-Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).

The plaintiff: Jennifer Erickson
The defendant: Bartell Drug Company.

2-Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.

Women now in a time equate with the man, she works as man work. Therefore she needs to regulate the pregnancy and determine it, and it can’t occur except through contraception which is not covered by insurance even though it is important and necessary and a reflection on their performance at work. Lack of insurance coverage for contraceptives refers to racism against women because men do not pay for the means to prevent pregnancy, while women do because insurance did not include it.

3-Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear. 4-Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.

The law:
(Impermissible sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) So, according to the law and the case, the plaintiff has the right to a full owed to win the case, because of: 1-The contraceptive will
give women greater choice in controlling the timing of their pregnancies and if that happens women will act better in her work and in her house also. 2-Increasing access to birth control reduces the need for abortion and reduces the number of unwanted children. 3-lack of insurance coverage for contraceptives refers to racism against women because men do not pay for the means to prevent pregnancy, while women do because insurance did not include it.

4-Women like men, if men did not pay women did not pay too.