No. 18-754

David A. Ramirez v. Walmart

Lower Court: North Dakota
Docketed: 2018-12-13
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: civil-rights discrimination due-process employee-termination employment employment-law labor labor-rights protected-activity retaliation workload-allocation workplace-dismissal
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Why did the Walmart lawyer tell the court that this was a protected activity?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED "... March 26, 2017. When the manager's assistant spoke again, that the layoffs can continue..." This detail can not be neglected, or overlooked. We have then that: Night shift: Year Month Associated Workload Store , 2014 Nov. 80 100% 100% 2017 Mar. 17 140% 100% 2018 Jul. 12 250% 100% We have that the store has not been partially closed, by 2018 it is still open at 100%. The responsibilities that were in 2014, remain the same for 2018. But the remaining staff, not only have to answer for their duties, but also for the staff that has been fired. Your workload is now 250%. The questions are: 1. Why did the Walmart lawyer tell the court that this was a protected activity? 2. In serial dismissals, as a protected activity, do statutes allow that the work left by dismissed personnel must be charged to the remaining personnel? 3. In serial dismissals, as a protected activity, do the bylaws allow the dismissed staff to record a "false cause" as an excuse to be fired? 4, In serial dismissals, as a protected activity, do the bylaws allow staffto be — , subjected to forced labor before being dismissed? ,

Docket Entries

2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
Reply of petitioner David A. Ramirez filed. (Distributed)
2019-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-14
Brief of respondent Walmart Inc. in opposition filed.
2019-01-14
Proof of Service filed with respect to brief in opposition of respondent Walmart Inc.
2019-01-14
Certificate of Compliance filed with respect to brief in opposition of respondent Walmart Inc.
2018-09-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 14, 2019)

Attorneys

David A. Ramirez
David Alejandro Ramirez Moreno — Petitioner
David Alejandro Ramirez Moreno — Petitioner
Walmart Inc.
Christopher Robert HedicanBaird Holm LLP, Respondent
Christopher Robert HedicanBaird Holm LLP, Respondent