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 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document