...
首页> 外文期刊>Human Resources 21 >DECISION - IF YOU WERE THE JUDGE...
【24h】

DECISION - IF YOU WERE THE JUDGE...

机译:决定-如果您是裁判...

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Yes, Patricia won her ADA lawsuit. A federal jury gave her $20,000 in compensatory damages, and she was also awarded $1,240 in back pay. Even worse for the company, an appeals court took another look at the case and decided Patricia might have a right to punitive damages, too. The appeals court ordered a new trial to decide any punitive damages, which could easily push the total bill into six figures. The company claimed Patricia was fired for lying on her job application. But the jury saw that as, at worst, an innocent mistake on her part. What got the company nailed was that Bernadette wrongly saw Patricia as disabled, and fired her on that basis, according to the jury. Bernadette's remarks about the risks of Patricia working in the kitchen and what clients would think proved that her main concern was Patricia's hepatitis, not the job application, the jury found.
机译:是的,帕特里夏(Patricia)赢得了她的ADA诉讼。联邦陪审团判给她$ 20,000的补偿性赔偿,还获得了$ 1,240的欠薪。对于公司而言更糟的是,上诉法院再次审理此案,并裁定Patricia也有权获得惩罚性赔偿。上诉法院下令进行新的审判,以裁定任何惩罚性赔偿,这很可能将总费用推高到六位数。该公司声称,帕特里夏因说谎求职而被解雇。但是陪审团认为,在最坏的情况下,她认为这是一个无辜的错误。陪审团认为,令公司感到震惊的是,伯纳黛特错误地认为帕特里夏是残疾人,并以此解雇了她。陪审团发现,伯纳黛特(Bernadette)关于帕特里夏(Patricia)在厨房工作的风险以及客户认为的话证明了她的主要担忧是帕特里夏(Patricia)的肝炎,而不是工作申请。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号