Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
Read the case Wedow v. Kansas City, Missouri. Write a brief 1-2 paragraph summary of the case and answer the case questions. The case study must have 2 sections: Summary: Write a 1-2 paragraph summar
Read the case Wedow v. Kansas City, Missouri. Write a brief 1-2 paragraph summary of the case and answer the case questions.
The case study must have 2 sections:
Summary: Write a 1-2 paragraph summary of the key facts and legal issues in the case.
Case Questions: Answer each of the listed questions following the case using the facts of the case and the concepts introduced in the textbook. You must also clearly explain your reasoning. Be sure to number your responses.
APA format is required.
case questions:
1. are you surprised this is a 2006 case? Why or why not? 2. How do you think the fire department should have responded when the women registered complaints about their uniforms? Explain. 3. Why do you think the fire department treated the female employees as it did?
i will attach case document as well!
- @
- 749 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $50.00. See answer's preview
******* ** Wedow *** ** ***** **** **** ******* ** * Kansa **** ******** fire ********** where they ********* their **** ** ************ **** ***** * **** ** the ***** ** *** *********** ***** the ************** they **** ****** ** terms ** *** **** **** complaining ***** the poor working ********** in *** ********** **** ******** ******** ** * lack of adequate ******* ********** *** ******** ** ******* themselves **** *** **** to *** and ******* the **** they filled ***** *** ******* environment they were ****** ** ******** ***** Even ***** providing *** **** ******** ***** *** ******* *********** the court failed ** ****** ** ******* ** was *** ***** ** *** Equal ********** *********** ********** ****** In their ********** ** ***** ********* in *** case about *** ************ *********** but ** ***** *** *** In its ************* *** district ***** **** **** ** ***** only **** concerning **** *** **** ****** ** *** **** By conducting * ****** ******** **** ***** **** the ***** environment *** riskier *** ** Kline **** ** *** *** Ms ***** ***** ** *** Ms Kline ********* (Wolfman ********* ********** *** *** ********* this ** * 2006 ***** *** ** *** not? * am surprised that **** ** a **** case This is ******* *** case *** filed between 1992 *** **** **** shows **** the ******** ***** *** **** **** ** ****** ********** ** the ************** case Since *** **** *** **** filed **** **** *** ***** *** * ******** *** ***** ** have **** *** ****** in not **** than * **** (Wolfman ***** **** **** reveals *** *** court ******** ************** ** ******* to be *********** in ****** ******* *** ******** **** **** ******** ** side * justice ********* court ****** *** **** ** ****** of ****** *** **** judgements in ***** *** ** *** ***** the **** ********** ****** have ********* when *** ***** ********** ********** ***** ***** ********* ******* * ***** the **** ********** ****** have responded to **** ********* ** ********* the ***** uniforms for ***** This ** because every ********** becomes uncomfortable when **** ** its ******* are ******** ** *** public ******* ******* *** ********** ****** until *** *** women filed *** **** again *** **** ********** should **** ********* ** *** claim ** ********* the ***** ******* **** ** the *** ***** ** end *** **** ** a ***** ** law * ***** *** ********** ****** have tried ** ******* *** ***** ** giving the ***** ******** ** women ******* ** ****** **** men's ***** ********* *** ** you think *** fire ********** ******* *** female ********* as it **** The fire ********** *** ****** employees **** this ******* they were ************** In this **** ** ** **** ******* **** **** ******** *** right clothing ** *** ******* *** **** cared **** ***** *** ****** ********* **** **** provided ********** and *********** ******** to *** *** ***** showing *** ****** and ************* they **** ** ensuring ******* *** ******** *** department *** publicly ******* *** **** they were ************* **** *** ******* **** *** ***** ******** to *** members of *** ****** *** **** ********** was *** ******** ** discrimination ******* ***** ** ******* ***** ** *** message they **** ********* to *** ****** (Wolfman ********************** * (2019) ***** ** Brian ******* ******* * ******** *** Eric ********* ** Amici Curiae ** ******* of Petitioner ** ******** * Linear ******** ************ (US ******* ***** ** **************** *** **** Schnapper ** ***** ****** ** Support ** ********** in ******** v ****** Controls ************ *** ******* ***** ** *** ********** * ***** United States Supreme ***** *********