Should You Agree to the Terms and Conditions?

Purdham v. Fairfax County School Board 

I agree with the court’s ruling on this case. The case addresses the provisions stipulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA is a federal law that regulates wage limits and employees’ emoluments ( Coleman, 2011 ). The Act affects all employees that are engaged in duties or positions at their workplace that require them to work beyond the normal working hours, hence the right to claim overtime. 

The courts’ analysis is well articulated. It addresses the state of events before the appellant, James Purdham, took a legal action against Fairfax County School Board, on the grounds that he was denied overtime wages for his services as a couch. Consequently, the analysis elaborates the difference in context, between the validity of the defendant’s claim that James Purdham is a volunteer, or he is indeed an employee. 

Although James Purdham might have accrued benefits in the past as a coach, he is not automatically deemed an employee. As the court rulings establishes, there is no legal basis of James Purdham as an employee. As such he is not entitled to overtime wages. 

This case has an absolute impact on how I run my school. As an employee who is serving as coach, I am deemed a volunteer through the eye of the law. This, therefore, limits me from claiming overtime wages ( Ehrenberg, 1982 ). 

Parker v. Franklin County Community School Corp 

I disagree with the court’s ruling in this case. The regulation at issue in this case is Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX is a federal law that disallows discrimination on the basis of gender in all federal funded activities and programs ( Cox, 1977 ). 

I don’t quite agree with the court’s analysis on this particular case. Although it gives an in-depth consideration of the appellant’s background and its implication on the claims brought forward in the court, the analysis fails to show how the ruling obliges with genuine interpretation of the provisions stipulated by Title IX. Accordingly, the law requires than substantial disparity must first be established, before finding a violation of the statute ( Gavora, 2002 ). Contrariwise, the appellant has failed to show this disparity. The analysis fails to substantiate whether a difference in scheduling negatively affects one sex and how that impacts on the pervasiveness of its disparity. 

This court ruling will most certainly affect how school athletic programs are run. It enforces the Title IX provisions of gender equality and non-discriminatory policies in school programs ( Cox, 1997 ). In most occasions, school programs such athletics inculcate participation by both genders which calls for absolute fair treatment insofar as participation is concerned. 

References  

Coleman, W. A. (2009). FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

Cox, T. A. (1977). Intercollegiate Athletics and Title IX.  Geo. Wash. L. Rev. ,  46 , 34. 

Ehrenberg, R. G., & Schumann, P. L. (1982). Compliance with the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Journal of Law and Economics ,  25 (1), 159-181. 

Gavora, J. (2002).  Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title IX . Encounter Books, 665 Third Street, Suite 330, San Francisco, CA 94107-1951.