Petruska vs.Gannon University AND Ali vs. Mt. Sinai Hospital Please Brief these

Question

Petruska vs.Gannon University AND Ali vs. Mt. Sinai Hospital

Please Brief these two cases by using "FIRACT" method.

*(Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Take-home message):

Facts (what are the facts relevant to deciding the case?)

Issue (what is the precise legal issue that must be resolved in the case?)

Rule of Law (what is the applicable legal principle explained by the court)? What does it require or prohibit?

Analysis (here, you apply the relevant Facts to the applicable Rule of Law)

Conclusion (based on your Analysis above, does the employer or employee prevail? Why?)

Take-home message (what should we learn from this case that is applicable to future management conduct?)

Problem 5-09 The table below shows data on the returns over five 1-year periods for seven mutual funds. A firm's portfolio managers will assume that one of these scenarios will accurately reflect the investing climate over the next 12 months, The probabilities of each of the scenarios occurring are 0,1, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, and 0.4 for years 1 to 5, respectively RETURNS OVER FIVE 1-YEAR PERIODS FOR SEVEN MUTUAL FUNDS Mutual Funds Large-Cap Stock Mid-Cap Stock Small-Cap Stock Energy/Resources Sector Health sector Technology Sector Real Estate Sector Planning Scenarios for Next 12 Months Year 1 Year 2 ear 3 ear 4 Year 5 28.3 0.9 6.0 -20.5 29.7 45.7 21.1 35.3 32.3 20.8 25.3 49.1 46.2 20.5 20.0 23.2 22.5 33.9 5.5 21.7 44.0 10.4 49.3 33.3 20.9 77.7 93.1 2.6 -9.3 22.8 2.5 -24.9 20.1 5.1

Explanation / Answer

Fact & Analysis of the case

Gannon University is a private Catholic diocesan college located in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Gannon hired Petruska as the Univeristy's Director of Social Concerns on July 16, 1997. During that time Reverend Nicholas Rouch was the University Chaplain.
Rouch left to study in Rome for three years, and was promised he could resume his position as chaplain when he returned.
President Monsignor David Rubino promoted Petruska to permanent University Chaplain on July 1, 1999, with the advice and consent of Bishop Trautman, the Chair of Gannon's Board of Trustees.
Petruska was the first female in Gannon's history to serve in that position.
In March of 2000, Rubino was forced to take a leave of absence when allegations surfaced that he was having sexual affair with a female subordinate. Shortly after, another female employee accused Rubino of sexual harassment.
Petruska was instrumental in bringing this claim to the attention of Bishop Trautman and then Provost Dr. Thomas Ostrowski.
Rubino formally resigned in May of 2000 and Ostrowski was appointed Acting President.
Gennon began a campaign to cover-up Rubino's misconduct to which Petruska vocally objected.
In July of 2000, Ostrowski met with the Bishop Trautman and Rouch. At the meeting, the Bishop informed Ostrowski that he was to remove Petruska as University Chaplain.
On July 28, 2000 Ostrowski told Petruska about his meeting with Rouch and Bishop Trautman, and said that the proposed action was being taken on the basis of her gender.
On October 2, 2000 Petruska signed the revised contract, and her contract was extended until June 20, 2003.

On May 21, 2001 Dr. Antoine Garibaldi was appointed President of Gannon.
The case was dismissed by the district court. Petruska went on to file an appeal with the Supreme Court and that petition was denied.

On August 21, 2002, Garibaldi informed Petruska that she would be removed from the President's Staff and that the Chaplain's Division would report to Rouch.
After meeting with Garibaldi, Petruska orally requested information about filing a discrimination grievance with the University Review Council, and was notified later that University Review Council is not the proper forum because the complaint was directed against the President and Chair of the Board.
On October 1, Vincent told Petruska that she could not take any action against Gannon, nor was she to make any comment about Gannon's discrimination conduct.
On October 14, 2002 Petruska gave her resignation letter with two-week notice. The following day, Rouch and Bob Cline, Gannon's Human Resources Director, accepted resignation effective immediately.
On August 20, 2003 Petruska filed a complaint with the EEOC. She filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvani against
Defendants Gannon University, members of the Board of Trustees (including Trautman, Garibaldi, and Vincent), Rubino, and Rouch. Where Petruska is the Plaintiff.

Petruska asserted six claims: 1) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII against all Defendants; 2) retaliatory discrimination in violation of Title VII against all Defendats; 3) fraudulent misprepresentation against Gannon, Rubino, and Trautman; 4) civil conspiracy against Trautman, Garibaldi, and Rouch; 5) breach of contract against Gannon and Garibaldi; 6) negligent supervision and retention against Gannon and its Board.
Gannon moved to dismiss Petruska's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1) to which the District Court granted the motion.
The district court has jurisdiction in this case. They dismissed Petruska's complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that the "ministerial exception" as stated in the text of the case. A doctrine rooted in the First Amendment-barred her claims.

Issue of the case

The key human relations issue in this case is gender discrimination. Petruska was not able to effectively bring her claim for gender discrimination because of the limitation on religious claims. The law Title VII covers what it covers and no more. In order for Petruska to have a valid claim under Title VII, she must be able to show that she has been discriminated against one of the bases in the law. The base is as followed that Petruska is not covered under this law: employees of religious institutions, associations, or corporations hired to perform work connected with carrying on religious activities. As stated in the text if the employee cannot show discrimination against one of the bases of law, then there is no basis for a title VII claim. The first amendment also protects a church’s right to decide matters of faith and to declare its doctrine free from state interference. A church has the ability to select who will perform this position with particular spiritual functions as needed. Petruska’s position as University Chaplin was ministerial in nature, and because of that her Title VII, civil conspiracy, and negligent retention and supervision claims were dismissed.
Work Cited

Rule of Law

The rule of law that applied to this case is lack of jurisdiction 12(b)1. The reason is the "ministerial exception" from the doctrine in the First Amendment barred Petruska's claims.

Conclusion

The case was dismissed by the district court. Petruska went on to file an appeal with the Supreme Court and that petition was denied.

Lessons that can be learned:

Lessons learned from the case result in making sure that there are more than just personal emotional standards at the forefront of someone’s job; for they are getting paid to ensure that their establishment thrives among the rest against the tests of time. The objective and the intentions of the employee were sound in the matter of how the University was trying to bend the rules around a law that protects the very people who were victims of harassment on the University’s campus and whom were also employees at the University. The case also had various non-concrete evidence that spurred from a ‘he said, she said’, without any physical evidence that could have determined that which was the case.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.