You fly into Morocco and meet Mourad. He is a 15 year old Arab who is in high school with plans on going to college. He tells you 4 very important facts about his ethnic group: 1.
2.
3.
4.

Adefendant visited her doctor to seek treatment for a bullet wound. while he was treating the wound, the doctor asked the defendant how she was shot. the defendant replied that she was struck by a police officer’s bullet while running away from a jewelry store she had robbed, but she implored the doctor not to tell this to anyone. the doctor promised that he would not. although the defendant was never charged by the police, the owner of the jewelry store brought suit against her seeking the value of the stolen goods. the defendant denied robbing the store. at the trial, the owner calls the doctor to testify to the statement made to him by the defendant. the defense attorney objects on the ground that such testimony is barred by the jurisdiction’s physician-patient privilege. should the objection be sustained?

The government of country a has determined there is a coal shortage based on mining reports.as a result of these data, the government decreases coal exports to other nations. access to information country a

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.