Torts Keyed to Goldberg
Wilson v. Monarch Paper Co.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In 1970, Richard Wilson, at the age of forty-eight, joined Monarch Paper Co. (Monarch)), a division of Unisource Corporation, which was itself a division of Alco Standard Corporation (Alco). Wilson was responsible for managing Monarch’s Corpus Christi unit until 1977. After 1977, he was promoted to a corporate director position at the company’s Houston offices. In 1980, Wilson was designated Vice President. In 1981, he was providedan additional title of Assistant to John Blankenship, Monarch’s president. Wilson’s work was always highly regarded. In 1981, he was responsible for managing the company’s largest construction project to date, and he completed the project under the budget. Likewise, inthat year, Monarch elected a new president, 42-year-old Hamilton Bisbee. Among the company, there wasgossiping regarding the age of the company’s management team and about the promotion of younger individuals.Both Bisbee and Richard Gozon, the 43-year-old president of Unisource, wanted to get remove of Wilson from the company. Bisbee refused to speak to or acknowledge Wilson. Over time, both Bisbee and Gozonbegan to give Wilson’s duties to other people. In or around June 1982, Bisbee gave Wilson three options: be terminated with three months’ severance, take a sales position in Corpus Christi with a decreased pay, or take a warehouse supervisor position in Houston with the same pay, but with a decrease in benefits, including participation in the bonus program, a company car, an expense account, and a club membership. Ultimately, Wilsondecided to take the warehouse position, thinking he would be managingthe warehouse. However, Bisbee gave himan entry-level position, one that required less than one year’s experience. At that moment, Wilson not only had a college degree, but he also had 30 years’ experience in the industry. At the warehouse, Wilson’s supervisor regularly harassed and verbally abused him by making and posting derogatory statements about his age. Wilson was designated to work on housekeeping at the warehouse by without any assistance. Thus, 75 percent of his job required him to do menial labor, such as sweeping the building and cleaning the cafeteria. Thereafter, Wilson began to experience respiratory issues due to the dust. Likewise, Wilson was diagnosed with reactive depression from the stress he endured at his work environment. Before these circumstances, Wilson did not have prior psychological problems. During March 1983, Wilson had a psychological episode, causing him to be involuntary hospitalized. Wilson gradually established a long-lasting depression, requiring him to be hospitalized against and treated with electric-shock therapy. During February 1984, Wilson brought suit against Monarch, Unisource, and Alco. A jury found for Wilson on the grounds of Age Discrimination in Employment Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law. Defendants appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.