Introduction
The problem identified in this case is the validity of Odirizzi’s resignation, considering there were cases of duress, undue influence, or fraud that resulted in coercion. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that school representatives stormed to his residence before his arrest and convinced him to resign as their employee, which was in his best interest (FindLaw, 2022). Additionally, during this arrest period, an attorney was not consulted due to time constraints, resulting in legal input dismissal. The school also promised not to publicize the incident, jeopardizing his chances of securing another job. All these stressors indicate possible coercion, which brings the issue of forceful resignation.
Rule
Civil assault law will apply in this case, which is a statute that assumes any intentional acts to cause apprehension or fear to the plaintiff with the target of conformity to be a crime. Under this law, various situations will be examined, including the school management’s instillations of fear directly through threats or malice to misguide the individual (FindLaw, 2022). This law also considers the defendant’s welfare by incorporating the aspects of self-defense, whereby the school must guard its reputation over anything else.
Analysis
The reversed judgment was based on the justification of duress, menace, actual fraud, and undue influence. The court analyzed the unlawful confinement, which pressured the plaintiff to consent to a transaction due to fear. They also considered the distress Odorizzi of the threat of detention if he disagreed with the terms proposed by the school as enough of a menace (FindLaw, 2022). Additionally, Actual fraud was confirmed when the school threatened to publicize the proceedings, which would tarnish his reputation. Finally, all these caused undue influence, and the plaintiff acted against his will, resulting in inequity.
Conclusion
The court got it right, considering that they reinforced the power of the plaintiff’s plea. The school should not have interfered with the processes, considering their involvement worked against them. The issue was the validity of the plaintiff’s resignation since it was procured due to external pressure that clouded personal interests. All these indicate that the judgment was fair and systematic since the evidence provided by the plaintiff was satisfactory.
Reference
FindLaw. (2022). District court of appeal, second district, division 2, California; Donald W. Odorizzi, plaintiff and appellant, v. Bloomfield school district, defendant and respondent. Web.