[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Case Study: Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment
This paper is a case study on "Case Study: Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment". The paper examines the role of after-acquired evidence in employment cases, and in which instances such evidence, found after an employer has already disciplined the employee, may bar suit or preclude some form of relief. It defines and explains the governing principles of after-acquired evidence, and continues by contextualizing and applying these principles in both employment discrimination and wrongful termination cases. It furthermore progresses by finding fault with the present treatment of after-acquired evidence, and continues by presenting its own comprehensive approach for how such evidence should be treated in employment law cases in Alaska. It is concluded by suggesting that the Alaska judicial system should attempt to develop a uniform method to deal appropriately with after-acquired evidence in employment cases.
No apparent rules have emerged in Alaska. In cases alleging employment favouritism claims under federal law, it is at present well established that after-acquired proof limits damages however does not bar suit. On the other hand, in cases not implicating illicit biased cause, state courts have not uttered steady philosophy. The increasing weight of authority holds that after-acquired evidence bars suit in usual illegal termination cases, however different authority does exist. In addition, corollary questions remain unrequited. For instance, courts do not concur on the applicable burden of proof. A few courts hold that employers may establish the existence of after-acquired evidence by a preponderance of the evidence. Other courts require proof by clear and convincing evidence. Still other courts are silent on the issue. Courts also differ on whether an employer's decision to impose authority based on after-acquired evidence should be governed by an objective "reasonable employer" standard or whether employers may rely upon their subjective discretion to interpret and apply their own work rules in daunting restraint.
After-acquired confirmation usually falls into two extensive categories. Initially after-acquired evidence time and again arises when an employer discovers that an employee has made deceptive misrepresentations in a job function or resume submitted to the employer. Secondly, after-acquired evidence at times involves pre-discipline delinquency that the employer did not discover until after the employee filed suit. One more category is the post-discipline misconduct, which logically fits within the concept of after-acquired evidence however has not found favour with the few courts that have addressed it. It is possible to further classify after-acquired evidence by reference to whether the alleged misconduct is related to a violation of ordinary work rules or pre-litigation activity. A number of after-acquired evidence cases involve pre-litigation efforts by employees to gather evidence against their employers. Other cases involve more typical violations of work rules that the employer did not find out until after suit was filed....
This essay has the followings:
Total words: 1,272
Total reference: 2
Total price: £ 19.95
Click here to Order this essay!
Get Professionally written Essays that are:
• Written According to your Exact Requirements
• 100% Original and Non-Plagiarized
• Written by Expert
UK Writers
• Delivered to you before your deadline
Amazingly Low Prices - £9.95/page
