In the case of Black vs Usher Transport, the courts should rule in the favor of Black. This case involves a truck driver who can sue for loss of employment due to mishandled information and defamation of character. Black also was dealing with loss of salary and emotional distress because this caused an issue with him getting a job due to his job history. The reading in this case states that his drug test was read incorrectly by the office worker and that he lost his employment as a result of a positive drug screen. The misleading information had an impact on his future employment. In addition to the horrible accusations, was that information pertaining to an altercation he had at a truck stop with another trucker; however there was no information …show more content…
The company fired the trucker due to a drug screen that stated that he tested positive for drugs, which was untrue. Also the company did not indicate that Black did not have a history using drug history. Later, the examiner came forward to admit that she had made a mistake in her report. The statement the examiner made should not be justified or ignored in this case. Since the company falsely accused the driver of being on drugs, he should be guaranteed his employment back and he should be compensated for back pay. “ The available sources of public may vary from case to case and there may be many statutory remedies that are preempted to relate common law tort actions. The damages that are indicated in this case falls under wrongful termination do not suffer from the same caps as some of the statutory claims and the statues of limitations fall in terms of years instead of days. Nevertheless, some plaintiffs can strategically benefit from common law or the state federal law (Oswald & Vogelsang, …show more content…
The misleading information made it very difficult on him gaining employment. Any time that a person losses their job, it can bring about stress from worrying about how they manage financially and cause the individual to not be able to focus. The impact was powerful in this case, causing the truck driver to suffer for two years because of his termination. The courts should rule in his favor because of the emotional stress and choice of words that the employer placed in his file, which caused the issue from the start. Suing for defamation of character should be indicated as well because the company did tarnish his personnel file by stating that he got into a fight with another trucker at a truck stop. These statements that were placed in his personnel file made the trucker seem negative and did not work well with others and that he would be a troublemaker for any company that may hire him. The incident at the truck stop in this case could be ruled out as hear say due to the fact of like of documentation. Also, there was not a police report to give an indication of a brawl or arrest report of the driver being arrested for aggressive
The case People v. Rice is about a girl named Nina Rice, who was charged with information with the crimes of theft and computer crimes. In 2003, the defendant filed for unemployment compensation benefits with Colorado Department of Labor and Employment by using an interactive computer system which she could communicate over the telephone. She made biweekly claims for unemployment for over five months. Each time she applied, they asked if she worked during the week she applied for it and she said no every time.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
PART (A) What criminal charge is Dave most likely to face? Discuss any defenses. Embezzlement
On June 7th, 1892, Homer Plessy boarded a Louisiana train with a first class ticket. Plessy was one-eighth black, and was therefore an easily white-passing man. When he seated himself in the whites-only carriage of the train, he was soon forcibly removed and placed under arrest. The reason for his imprisonment was for ‘violating an act of the General Assembly of the State,’ as specified in the Supreme Court’s transcript of the Plessy v. Ferguson case. At the time, a law was in place in the state of Louisiana dictating that people of color and whites must sit in separate train carriages.
Fare v. Michael C. is a case from 1979 where the United States Supreme Court reviewed what would make a juvenile’s confession inadmissible in court (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The case begins with the respondent, Michael C., a 16-year-old juvenile being taken into custody by Van Nuys police in California on the suspicion of murder. He was immediately taken to the police station for questioning. Prior to the beginning of questioning, police fully advised Michael of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. At the beginning of the questioning, Michael, who was on probation in the Juvenile Court, asked for his probation officer to be present.
The court in that case found that since they could always reinstate his job and give him back pay later, the agency didn’t need to hold the hearing prior to firing the employee. One criticism with this decision is that the court gives no guidance on how to compare the factors. For example, how do you compare the risk of error to the fiscal burden to the agency? It’s apples and oranges. It is impossible to create a common metric.
He was fired for three reasons, the first being the failure to remain courteous and tactful in the performance of his duties. The second being that he prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time necessary to complete the tasks and
Sometimes in a court of law people are wrongfully punished for crimes. Blockburger was arrested for violating the Narcotics Act. In the 1931 Blockburger v. United States court case, Blockburger was found guilty of violating the Narcotics Act by the district court, he then appealed to the to the Supreme Court. The Blockburger v. United States court case is similar to the Robinson v. Alabama case, in To Kill A Mockingbird,because in both cases the defendants were wrongfully sentenced. Blockbuster committed multiple crimes, that violated the Harrison Narcotics Act.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s Railway Company (BNSF) are accused of violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) by discharging coal dust into waterways from uncovered train cars without the proper permits. Plaintiffs include; the Sierra Club, Puget Soundkeeper, Columbia Riverkeeper, RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Friends of the Columbia Gorge Spokane. In April, BNSF was sent a 60 day notice by plaintiffs, demonstrating the companies' responsibility and pertinent evidentiary support showing coal emissions in waterways. The plaintiffs requested a plan of action to curb the amount of discharge or they intended to take the case to court.
6. Please read this decision by the Iowa Supreme Court in an attorney discipline case and answer these four questions: a. Should judges care if attorneys submit legal briefs or written motions that are plagiarized? Please explain your answer. Yes.
Should you allow her to retain employment based on the previous EEOC suit? a. Title VII of the Civil Rights act protects against retaliation against an individual who filed a discrimination charge, but it is not absolute. In order for an employee to succeed on a claim of retaliation they must show they engaged in protected activity, adverse employment actions were taken, and there was a causal connection between the employment action taken and the protected activity. If I can show her dismissal had no underlying connection to the protected activity I am not bound by law to retain her employment. b. In Jennings v. Tinley Park Comm.
One of the issues raised by the film was stereotypes against battered women. Most of the people interviewed were family members of Melvin who took his side. They represent the victim as someone nice and quiet who would not hurt anyone. They did not believe Shirley was being abused because of victim character as nice and quiet. They also give reasons such as there are no bruises on her face, they never saw them argue, and why didn 't she leave.
The Brock Turner case is a very controversial case that spark debate on the subject of white male privilege and the abuse of power. People speculate that the only reason Turner received such a minimal sentence is because his parents are affluent and influential, due to their success and status as a white professional. He was found guilty and the judge gave him a very lenient sentence. Many people saw this as unfair to the girl that was raped and to everyone else impacted by this man 's crime. The judge 's name is Aaron Persky.
They did not like the fact that he did not work in accordance to the rules. Because the dislike of colleagues did not match the respect of prosecutors, the instance was dropped. Such a serious crime of scientific fraud ignored and dismissed, for something as childish as coworkers not getting along. This was only the beginning of the the allowance of Fred Zain to do whatever his wanted. It was not only West Virginia that made the mistake of hiring such an inadequate person for the job.
The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community.