In a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter Zarella argued that "the constitutionality of condemnations undertaken for the purpose of private economic development depends not only on the professed goals of the development plan, but also on the prospect of their achievement." Presciently, he warned that "[the] record contains scant evidence to suggest that the predicted public benefit will be realized with any reasonable certainty" and that it was "impossible to determine whether future development of the area . . . Will even benefit the public at all." –"The story behind Kelo v. City of New London," Ilia Somin Which statement best paraphrases Justice Zarella's dissenting opinion?

Research and review one of the following cases: 1. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc. 2. young vs ups 3. vance vs ball state university after you have thought through and understand the case answer the following: 1. explain the facts of the case leading to the dispute. 2. define and show understanding of each of the terms assigned to your case. break the laws into components where necessary. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) disparate treatment discrimination, 4)disparate impact discrimination vance vs ball state university: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) hostile work environment, 4) a supervisor for title vii purposes young vs ups: 1) title vii, 2) pregnancy discrimination act, 3)american's with disabilities act, 4) reasonable accommodation 3.how do the above concepts come into play in the case? 4. what rule of law came from the case? what did the court decide? 5. based on your understanding of employment law was the ruling correct? explain using a legal principle.