Using the Westlaw service and the Keysite feature to complee this Research Paper

Using the Westlaw service and the Keysite feature to complee this project - Research Paper Example 08-55671, 08-55708)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   This is a case where an African-American petitioner sought writ of habeaus corpus after being convicted of first degree murder, second degree robbery, and kidnapping for robbery. The conviction also includes affirmance of his sentence to life coupled with a year in prison without parole. Nonetheless, this case though not yet overruled has received some negative treatment from the following case: In this case, some white police officers who were being rehired as entry-level officers after their resignation, brought suit alleging that the city had violated Title VII and Equal Protection Clause when they were denied credit for their earlier years of services. The credit was granted to African-American officer who were also in the process of being rehired. Despite the court ruling that Fair Pay Act applied retroactively on officers’ claims, paycheck accrual rule applied to officers’ 1983 claims, and that res judicata barred offices’ pay discrimination claims, the case has received negative treatment without being overruled from: In this case, a former employee of Home Depot, Ames brought action against former employer with allegations that the termination received violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Amazingly, the United States District Court for the Illinois Northern District, granted summary judgment that was in favor of employer on all the counts brought forth by the employee. After employee’s appealed, the Courts of Appeal held that the employee’s alcohol abuse was not serious health condition to command for protection under the FMLA and ADA, the termination was not retaliation for requesting for FMLA leave as the plaintiff alleged, and that the employee did not have any disability. Valentino, a municipal employee alleged that the mayor had terminated her against the provisions of  § 1983. Her claim was that the