Prima facie case?

Question

An employee had cancer, also severe allergies. After all the chemo, this employee was unable to work 12 hour shifts. The doctor would only allow 8 hour shifts. This department works a 12 hour swing shift. This employee was working 8 hours shifts on the swing. This employee would only get 24 or 32 hours a week. A new employee was hired, during the first months she was allowed to work 8 hour shifts, because of babysitting problems. But was allowed to work 5 -8 hour days a week, giving her 40 hours every week. Could this be a prima facie case?

Answer 1

I don't think so. At first appearance it may seem that there are favors or a discriminative work environment BUT your employer is also responsible to the sick worker. There can be an action brought against an employer who creates a hostile work environment or terminates employment due to an employee's document sickness. My question is...if it were you who is experiencing grave sickness or family dilemmas, how would you want to be treated? I think that I would enjoy working for an agency that empathized with my situation and worked with me instead of firing me.

Answer 2

I suppose you know that Prima Facie usually refers to records, verified accounts, records and/or etc. - thus "prima facie evidence".

My problem is like the first one answering - you did not give any details - only that the guy with cancer and the lady that could not get a babysitter for 12 hours a day - got to work less hours than other employees.

If you were looking at discrimination - I don't think so, as the employer was simply trying to help the employees to meet their lifestyles that had definate problems ... shoot, the guy with cancer working 12 hours a day could kill em ... I could not fathom bringing a suit against a company because they would be so callous as to wanting to kill a guy simply because of company policy.

However, if the company offered babysitting services - you would have a claim there if the lady still did not work what was required of other employees.

Put yourself in the shoes of the employer ... he probably did not need another full time employee - but; because the cancer guy could not fulfill the 12 hours a day - the employer was coming up short - a few man hours every day ...

So - to keep you all from having to take up the slack for an employee because he probably does not deserve to be fired just because he got cancer and needs further punishments - they hired someone else that also could not work full time as the other employees ... thus - taking up the slack from the cancer guy and thus - not having to pay through the nose to have another employee being there 20 or 30 hours more a week than the employer needs someone to be there ...

Make sense -

Then again - I am sure every one wants a pay raise ... now the employer who if it were up to the employees would have a dead cancer guy and one other working more hours than he finds necessary - to boot - he has to also find a way to pay you all more when you cry for more money????

Man - aren't you glad you are not the employer???

Was I close to what you were referring to???

Peace;

Aintmyfault
.

Answer 3

Lexie hit it right on the head. As for the question about indictments, not necessarily. Obtaining a true bill (indictment) from a grand jury depends on the standard used in a given jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions operate on a standard similar to "probable cause" where the district attorney need only prove that there is reason to believe the individual committed a particular felony. Other jurisdictions use a stricter standard similar to a prima facie case in civil law that requires grand juries not return an indictment unless the totality of the evidence presented, if unexplained or uncontradicted, would warrant a conviction. EDIT: Just to clarify, it depends. In terms of seeking an indictment, some times will and sometimes won't present a case that meets the prima facie standard. However, at trial (whether criminal or civil) the party bringing the action (prosecutor or plaintiff/complainant) must present a prima facie case to prevail (and the standard is actually supposed to be a little stricter in criminal proceedings). Otherwise, the defendant has a very good possibility to prevail on a motion for a directed acquittal (criminal) or a motion for summary judgement/dismissal (civil). If the motion is successful, then no, the defense wouldn't have a need to present any type of case, unless of course, there were counterclaims involved.

Answer 4

A prima facie case for what? Your question doesn't make any sense.