1. Holley and Holley, an interracial couple, alleged that they were the victims of discrimination in housing as a result of actions by Crank, an employee of Triad, Inc. The Holleys sued Meyer, the sole shareholder, the president, and a broker of Triad, Inc. Meyer argued that he was not personally responsible for the actions of either Triad or its employee, Crank. Will the Holleys be successful in their efforts to hold Meyer personally responsible? 

2. Dale, an assistant scoutmaster for the Boy Scouts, lost his position when the organization learned that he was gay. Dale contended that he was the victim of discrimination while the Boy Scouts argued that they were exercising their First Amendment right of freedom of expression. Does the organization have First Amendment rights, or will Dale be successful in his suit against the Boy Scouts?
3. Melvin and his brother Russell Ballantyne formed an oral partnership, which started out as a farming operation but grew into oil and gas exploration. Russell was in charge of the farming operation, while Melvin was in charge of the oil and gas exploration. In practice, and by mutual agreement, the brothers withdrew profits from the partnership that were attributable to each of their respective business pursuits and paid the expenses related to each of their respective activities. In other words, Melvin kept the oil and gas income and paid those expenses, while Russell did the same with the farm income and expenses. However, for tax purposes, Melvin and Russell each reported 50 percent of the partnership’s total income, gains, losses, deductions, and credits on their individual federal tax returns. When Melvin died, the partnership automatically dissolved and family relations also took a turn for the worse. A dispute later arose regarding tax liability, and it was the contention of the Internal Revenue Service that there should be a 50–50 split with respect to tax treatment and distribution of the assets from the farming operation. Russell argued that he alone was entitled to the benefits from the farming operation. Is Russell correct in his contention that he alone should be entitled to the benefits from the partnership?