The case of R. v Eltom played a vital role in section 264 (c) as it relates to stalking someone’s residence, workplace or any other place an individual may be present for any purpose. This case also cleared up what constitutes as legally watching, The criminal code states merely looking, smiling or standing alone without any specific intent does not equal stalking under this section. Finally, the 2005 case of R. v Ohenhen determined what counted as "repeated" communication. The facts of the case are as follow, in 1990 the complainant and the appellant Mr. Ohenhen met for the first time at CNE where the appellant took the complainant’s number. After that
In April 2012, Ban the Box campaign successfully advocated with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC to clarify and strengthen its policies by updating the Enforcement Guidance on Consideration of Arrest or Conviction Records in Employment Decisions. During that same year, EEOC started immediately going after employers who had a ban on hiring people with criminal backgrounds. One employer that was hit with this policy was Pepsi Cola Company. Pepsi was order to pay over three million dollars because the EEOC ruled that Pepsi discriminated against race of African American applicants based off their background check. Pepsi was also ordered to provide job offers and training to their applicants (bantheboxcampaign.org).
“ Even though Judge Aaron Persky argued that a longer sentence would have “severe impact on Turner,” the victim’s letter to Turner states that the assault had “serious impact” on her (Baker). In her letter, she narrates how this hurt her. This is evident when “Emily Doe” says, “ I would drive to a secluded place to scream. I didn’t talk, I didn’t eat, I didn’t sleep” (Baker). The judge should have put into consideration the adverse effects of the assault on the victim before giving a shorter sentence to the
No matter the colour of the defendant’s skin, a white woman should not hold him accountable for an undeserved charge as a result of guilt and shame. Atticus appeals for racial equality, by accentuating that Mayella Ewell is guilty of a compassionate moment with a black man, and that it is not an excuse for a rape charge. This closing argument has been recognised as one of the 20th centuries most impressive messages in emphasising racial justice and a move for an integrated
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) According to the EEOC (2014), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 revision spoke directly to damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment. Prior to this revision and since this revision, there have been and are still employment discrimination cases going before the courts. This Act forbids employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age in any aspect of the employment process. Anyone who feels they have been discriminated against should file a suit against should file a claim with the Equal Opportunity Commission, who is charged with enforcing anti-discrimination cases. Before this Act passed an employers could not hire someone due to the
I think Liebeck is 40% in the wrong because, she should’ve known the coffee was hot, and should’ve been more careful. In the end I wouldn’t of paid Liebeck as much as she got, but I agree that she should get some kind of compensatory damage pay, and punitive damage
The commission had told him that he can't make this complaint since it wasn't under the Individual's Right Protection Act because it didn't include the sexual orientation act. The judge found that the judge had protection against discrimination on the basis which was an unjustified violation of section 15 of the charter. The respondents have claimed and voiced their opinion by saying that the case concerns the legislative under section 15 that it
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created by the assembly to put into effect title six of the civil rights act of 1964 which made it illegal to judge an individual by color, sex, race, origin or religion (Hattis, 2011). This agency is in control for implementing federal laws on the subject of discrimination against an employee in the United States. The agency enlighten the youth workers that they are protected from employment discrimination which involves: unfair treatment, annoyance by the employer or fellow employees, rejection of a realistic workplace change that they may need, retaliation due to complaints of the uncomfortable working environment. Consequently, employers ought to play the very vital role of ensuring a secure
As an employer, I would give Shawna, a 3 day suspension with no pay rather than terminating her; keeping in mind her clean record and 4 years of experience in the company. As Shawna has already been given 2 written warnings regarding arriving late to work; a suspension would be the next appropriate step. The 3 day suspension would be suffice as it would make her conscious of her behavior. Since she is a single mother, presumably, money would be an important factor in her life, especially because she has to pay for daycare arrangements along with day-to-day expenses. Thus, giving her suspension without pay would make her realize the importance of arriving to work on time.
Next on August 8th, Rachel files a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries, spurring an investigation, and this complaint will later be investigated. In March the bureau holds a hearing to decide whether the acts that occurred were so harmful they the Kleins would be obligated to pay emotional damage fines. The Bureau of Labor come to the conclusion that the Kleins are to pay $135,000 to the Bowman-Cryers. But this story doesn 't stop here, in August the Kleins pair up with Ted Cruz in his