Activity/Task

In this module the student must carry out a task, which is detailed below. (APA references, 500-700 word paper).

Task 5.1: Analysis of the Labor Jurisprudence Case

Instructions:

In this work the student will become familiar with the labor jurisprudence that has been presented in the Courts of Puerto Rico. It will read the following case:

Rosas fishmonger v. Lozada, 116 D.P.R.474 (1985) (trade acts).

After reading it, the student must analyze it as follows:

Presentation for Case Analysis:

To analyze the case the student is asked to focus on the most important facts that present the case, a case study analysis is not just to summarize the case, key issues and problems must be identified, highlight and evaluate possible courses of action, and propose appropriate conclusions.

Analysis Content:

STEP 1: Identify the most important facts surrounding the case

Protagonists: Characters involved in the case

Brief summary of what the case is about.

Read the case several times to familiarize yourself with the information it contains. Identify and explain what the case is about.

STEP 2: Identify the key problem or problems

Use the facts of the case to identify the problem that the case presents. Establish what is the problem that is presented in court. You will need to describe the problem and explain why the problem occurred.

STEP 3: Specify alternative courses of action by which the problem can be resolved

Set out the courses of action that the court can take to resolve the problem.

What did each of these cases demonstrate?

STEP 4: Evaluate each course of action

Evaluate each alternative that has been identified above and answer:

What would be the likely outcome of each of the possible solutions?

STEP 5: Recommend the best course of action

According to what was read in the case, you must choose one of the alternatives detailed above for the solution of that conflict, and you must explain why you selected it. Your final recommendation should follow logically from the rest of your case analysis and should clearly specify what assumptions were used to shape your conclusion. Often there is no one correct answer and each option is likely to have risks as well as rewards.

Case of Pescaderia v Osvaldo Lozada.pdf