#video case study

In Wal-Mart’s blockbuster of 2013, the case that he terms as sexually discriminative goes through various courts before reaching the Supreme Court. Since the class that is thrown out terms the decision as unfair, and are not satisfied, they decide to appeal the decision up to the last court (Walmart, 2013). The case goes first through the trial court where the class initiates the complaint. The defendant is then made aware and given time to respond. Since the defendants believe the decision they made is fair, they exchange facts about their decision which is presented to the judge. On viewing the facts, the judge makes decision in favor of the defendants. Unsatisfied, the plaintiff decides to file a petition. It is then taken to the appellate court which reviews the evidence and case outcome. The class is named as the appellant while the employee Apelles. Here the case is conducted a bit differently. A panel of three judges is the ones who review all the documents, evidence and decision in the case. Since their decision also affirms the lower court’s decision the party finally decides to move to the highest court, the Supreme Court.

The decision in the appellate court is made because the three judges decide to come into a conclusion despite not all of them agreeing. This is what is known as the majority decision. It means the decision made by the majority carries the day. Concurring opinion on the other hand means that there is one or more judges who wants to say something that was not included in the majority opinion. If a judge thinks that the decision made by the majority is wrong and write reasons explaining why he thinks so, it can be termed as dissenting opinion.

Since federal court has more jurisdiction than the state court, they were suit to hear the case. For instance it is allowed to hear cases from any state in the United States, even if one party if from outside the country.  Since the case was federal question case because it involved employee and employer were the employee were sexually discriminated. 

Reference

Wonderful spoof case study of a birthday party. *Doffs cap*.