MGMT 520 Case Analysis


MGMT 520 Case Analysis 
In 1996, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law barring governmental entities in…


MGMT 520 Case Analysis

MGMT 520 Case Analysis

A+ PowerPoint Presentations & Speaker Notes Included

Crosby v National Foreign Trade Council Case Analysis Week 2

CASE 8-2

Supreme Court of the United States 530 U.S. 363 (2000)

In 1996, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law barring governmental entities in Massachusetts from buying goods or services from companies doing business with Burma (Myanmar). Subsequently, the U.S. Congress enacted federal legislation imposing mandatory and conditional sanctions on Burma. The Massachusetts law was inconsistent with the new federal legislation. The National Foreign Trade Council sued on behalf of its several members, claiming that the Massachusetts law unconstitutionally infringed on the federal foreign-affairs power, violated the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and was preempted by the subsequent federal legislation. The district and appeals courts ruled in favor of the council, and the Commonwealth appealed…

Requirement Boomer et al. v. Atlantic Cement Co. Case Analysis Week 3

Case 22-1

New York State Court of Appeals 257 N.E.2d 870 (1970)

Defendant Atlantic Cement Company operated a large cement plant that emitted considerable amounts of dirt and smoke into the air. These emissions, combined with vibrations from the plant, caused damage to the plaintiffs, Boomer and other owners of property located close to the plant. The plaintiffs brought a nuisance action against the defendant, seeking an injunction. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants; it found a nuisance but denied plaintiffs the injunction they sought. The plaintiffs appealed to the intermediate appellate court, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs then appealed to the state’s highest appellate court…

Audito v. City of Providence Case Analysis Week 4

CASE 9-4

United States District Court, District of Rhode Island 263 F.Supp.2d 2358 (2003)

The city of Providence, Rhode Island, decided to hire a class of police officers in 2001. All had to graduate from the Providence Police Academy to be eligible. Two sessions were held. To be qualified, the applicants to the academy had to pass a series of tests and be deemed qualified after an interview. Those judged most qualified were sent a letter informing them that they had been selected to attend the academy if they completed a medical checkup and a psychological exam. The letter for the applicants to the 61st Academy, dated October 15, stated that it was a “conditional offer of employment.”

Meanwhile, a new chief of police was appointed in Providence. He changed the selection process, which caused some who had received the letter to be rejected. Audito and 13 newly rejected applicants (who had completed the examination) sued the City of Providence in federal district court, seeking a halt to the 61st Academy unless they attended. The plaintiffs alleged in part that the city was in breach of its contract…

McMillan v. City of New York Case Analysis Week 5

CASE 21-5

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4454 (2013)

Rodney McMillan had schizophrenia, which was treated with medication regularly. Despite this condition, McMillan held employment as a Case Manager for the HRA Community Alternative Systems Agency (CASA). His job duties included conducting annual home visits, processing social assessments, recertifying clients’ Medicaid eligibility, and making referrals. At McMillan’s place of employment, there was a “flex-time policy” which allowed employees to arrive at work anytime between 9:00am and 10:00am. More specifically, employees were not considered “late” to the office unless they arrived after 10:15am. Further, an employee’s tardiness could be approved or disapproved by that person’s supervisor.

McMillan testified in court that he usually woke up around 7:00am or 7:30am each morning, but his medications for schizophrenia made him “drowsy and sluggish.” As a result, McMillan often arrived late to work, around 11:00am. The Defendant City of New York did not contest that the reason for McMillan’s frequent tardiness was the treatment for his disability. For a period of time, McMillan’s tardiness was continuously approved by his supervisor. However, in 2008, McMillan’s supervisor Loshun Thornton, refused to approve any more of McMillan’s late arrivals. Later, on May 8, 2009, McMillan was fined for eight days’ pay for his late arrivals, and in 2010 the City brought charges of “misconduct and/or incompetence” against McMillan…

Miller v. McCalla, Raymer Padrick and Clark, LLC Case Analysis Week 6

CASE 25-6

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 214 F.3d 872 (2000)

Miller (plaintiff) sued McCalla (defendant) for violation of the FDCPA (Act) for failing to state “the amount of the debt” in a dunning letter that the defendant sent. The plaintiff argued that the relevant time for determining debt is when it first arises, not when collection begins. The defendants replied that they did state the amount of the debt.

The lower court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed…

Smith v. Van Gorkom Case Analysis Week 7

CASE 17-3

Delaware Supreme Court 488 A.2d 858 (1985)

In order to take advantage of a favorable tax situation, defendant Van Gorkom, chief executive of Trans Union Corporation (Trans Union or the Company), solicited a merger offer from Pritzker, an outside investor. Van Gorkom acted on his own and arbitrarily arrived at a buyout price of $55 per share. Without any investigation, the full Trans Union board accepted the offer informally.

The offer was proposed two more times before its formal acceptance by the board. Plaintiff Smith and other shareholders brought suit, claiming that the board had failed to give due consideration to the offer. The trial court held that the shareholder vote approving the merger should not be set aside because the stockholders had been “fairly informed” by the board of directors before they voted on it.

The court also found that, because the board had considered the offer three times before formally accepting it, the board had acted in an informed manner and was, therefore, entitled to the protection of the business judgment rule. The plaintiffs appealed…

MGMT 520 Case Analysis