The paper "Brown v. Swett & Crawford of Texas" is a worthy example of an assignment on business. Brown was a wholesale insurance broker, he worked with Galtney closely. ADallas company IBS offered Galtney to open a Houston office for them. Brown was asked by Galtney to join them and hence, they shared a base salary for 42:58 bases and commission similarly. However, IBS fired Brown on the claim that he was misusing the account and offered him severance pay. Though, Brown disagreed with those terms and sued the company stating that he had been wrongly expelled from the company.
According to the Texas Revised Partnership Act (TRPA) a partnership is formed when certain 5 criteria are being met such as, the right to receive profit of business, intention to be partners in the business, right to participate in control of the business, agreement to share losses and contribution of money and property in the business. When these criteria were referred to, the law found that Brown was not a partner as he was not under any of the set criteria and was given a base salary and not profits. However, the claim of IBS should also be thoroughly investigated to see that any fraud is not spoken.
To answer the question in the case study, Brown did not have a partnership claim because initially IBS asked Galtney to operate the office not Brown and it was Galtney who wanted Brown to join them so no official agreement was signed, only an oral statement of sharing of profits. To answer the second question, Brown should have insisted on a written agreement, concerned certificate and forms should have been filled which would have clearly stated Brown to be a partner.
Guz v. Bechtel National Case Study
This case study deals with the at-will-employment concept in the USA. Guz was a worker who was hired by Bechtel group in 1971 as an administrative assistant. During his 22 years of employment, he was given promotion, appraisal and steady increase in his salary. On the other hand, Bechtel had written layoff policy as well as at-will policy. At will policy states the “employees have no employment agreements guaranteeing continuous service and may resign at their option or be terminated at the option of Bechtel”. Then in January 1992, Bechtel was not satisfied with management performance and cost hence decided to lay off employees. In December 1992, Guz was informed that the management information group was being expelled and that, his work will be done by another organization and was being laid off. However, his suspension was activated on 11 June 1993.
The response of the Californian court was in favor of the Bechtel group because their policy for at-will employment was very clear and Guz was an at-will employee. The court further claimed that at-will employee can be terminated whenever the firms want, given that the firing reason is legal and lawful and not something personal such as discrimination. This further justified Bechtel firing of Guz because the reason for the act was lawful. However, if seen from a personal point, Bechtel should have considered Guz loyalty, commitment and hard work of so many years for the company before expelling him abruptly.
Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council Case Study
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Amendments) made requirements implementable to states that had not acquired the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in earlier rules. The Amendments required the “nonattainment” States to develop a permit program showing “new or modified major stationary sources” of air pollution, pursuant to stringent conditions. The EPA’s decision to permit States to deal with all pollution-removing devices within the same industry grouping as though within a single “bubble” was questioned in this case.
If Congress has given guidelines than interpret the status and if they leave something open for an explanation, it is presumed that they do so deliberately for the agency to fill the distance with their own information and expertise. If there are contradictory policies that the agency has solved with their skills, the congress will not intervene. Moreover, the bubble concept is reasonable for the statute. The court should have reviewed whether the bubble concept fills in the interpretive gap open by the congress or not.
Callison v. City of Philadelphia Case study
This study deals with FMLA action. David Callison was fired because he was found violating City’s sick leave abuse policy. Under this policy, any employee is supposed to remain inside their home and not leave it and if by any chance they do need to leave the house than first they need to call in the City’s sick control hotline. In 2001, Callison was found outside his home, on two occasions, when he was on FMLA leave and had not called the hotline. Hence, on his return, he was handed one day and three-day suspension.
However, The Third Circuit posts that the Citys sick leave abuse policy in no way violate the FMLA. The policy only affirms that employees do not violate their FMLA leave (or other sick leave).