Wells filed a lawsuit against her employer Clackamas Gastorenterology Associates, P.C. alleging that the medical clinic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act) when it terminated her employment. The medical clinic asserted that it was not subject to the provisions of the ADA because the ADA applies only to businesses with 15 or more employees. That assertion's accuracy depended on whether the four physician-shareholders who own the professional corporation and constitute its board of directors were counted as employees. The District Court concluded that the physicians were more analogous to partners in a partnership than to shareholders in a corporation and therefore were not employees under the ADA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding no reason to permit a professional corporation to reap the tax and civil liability advantages of its corporate status and then argue that it is like a partnership so as to avoid employment discrimination liability. Which argument do you think is correct? Why? How do you think the Supreme Court resolved this?
See Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 123 S.Ct. 1673 (2003).
This question was answered on: Jul 11, 2017
Need a similar solution fast, written anew from scratch? Place your own custom order
We have top-notch tutors who can help you with your essay at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments. This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student. New solution orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.