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.
The Act itself recognizes the inefficiency of the current NLRA remedies, “[t]he current remedies are inadequate to deter employers from violating the National Labor Relations Act.” First, the Act provides that for employers who commit 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(4) ULPs that “results in the discharge of an employee or other serious economic loss to an employees,” the Board, in addition to back pay, may allow for liquidated damages up to double the amount of the back pay, “without any reduction (including any reduction based on the employee’s interim earnings or failure to earn interim earnings).” Further, the Act solidifies the posting requirement in addition to requiring the employer to inform all new employees of the information within the notice, and for violations of the Board’s posting order, the Board would have the power to levy a civil penalty against the employer up for $500 for each
3-7: Arbitration (pg. 77) Horton Automatics and the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, the union that represented Horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee’s discharge for a workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee violated it. When Horton discharged employee Ruben de la Garza, the union appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that de la Graza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “was not totally convinced” that Harton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations. The arbitrator ordered de la Graza reinstated.
In the Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case, Dolores Oubre the plaintiff was a scheduler at power plant in Killona, Louisiana, which is run by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the defendant). In 1994, Oubre’s employer gave her two options: she can either improve her job performance or accept a severance pay. While accepting the severance package, Oubre signed a document that released her employer Entergy of all claims. Although the employer Entergy Operations was released of all claims, it failed to meet specific standards or requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as decided or set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). In procuring the release, Entergy failed to comply in at least three respects with the requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: It did not (1) give Oubre enough time to consider her options, (2) give her seven days to change her mind, or (3) make specific reference to ADEA claims (Twomey, 2013, p. 548).
(Ashcroft v. Iqbal) The complaint is not proper under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it would most likely be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Questions Presented I. Whether California or New York law should govern the validity and interpretation of the non-compete clause? II.
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the NLRB decide? This case is based on 26 former employees of MasTec Advanced Technologies, Inc. (MasTec), who sued the company alleging that their employment were terminated after an appearance on a TV news show, complaining about unfair new pay formula and the instructions to lie to the customers in order to meet with the telephone lines installations rates. As is mentioned in the textbook in the MasTec Advanced Technologies' case, the new pay formula indicate that the technicians would be paid $2 less for basic and additional outlet installations, but would earn $3.35 for each receiver they connected to phone line.
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.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed to reverse the previous court’s decision of not guilty citing that it is within the constitutional authority of Congress to standardize interstate commerce. The Court believed that the goal of the Act was to prohibit states from using substandard labor systems to their own monetary benefit by interstate commerce. The Court also established that the clause for keeping records of labor was fitting to allow for the enforcement of the Act. It was also decided that an employer could be held accountable to the law if they failed to follow it.
Hap went to the City to use a dozer to doze off the pile the contractor left on the airport, the City Administrator told him they do not loan equipment, they could enter into an agreement but that would need council approval. Hap got upset, went into the Library and had a conversation with the Mayor ( not sure how heated as another department employee went outside as he was embarrassed with how Hap was acting),the Mayor came outside from that conversation and told our employee she felt threatened by what happened in the library. Hap went to the office and told the employees “ if they assisted the City in any way they would be sent home for the day or terminated. ( got an answer that said sent home, the other said terminated, I believe the terminated). When did this happen?
When I asked Robert Hoffman to start at 5:00 a.m. to avoid the harassment fromMichael Niehenke and Donna Myers requested denied. C. When Harry Feals and I work together we have Julie Godzik, Robert Godzik, Brain Weaver and Michael Niehenke . These employees have stared at us until Mr. Franicola come after they called him Other employees are aloud to work together 8. Of the Persons in the same, or similar situation as you who was treated worse than you? Harry Feals Maintenance # 1 Harry Feals Maintenance #1 Mr. Feals received 11 weeks of Work for false allegation filed on pitt alert line, now he is seeking professional health with counseling to help cope with working at Pitt at Greensburg. .
This law is enforced by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for employees and cover employees of Legislative Branch. (US Department of Labor, 2008) All employees of certain enterprises that workers engaged in interstate commerce, handling, selling, or working on goods that have been moved in or produced by
Therefore, the accommodation of permitting the plaintiff to be exempted from having to rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9 would create the removal of a marginal function and make it a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that neither the written job description for the inspector positions nor the mutual agreement made reference to the rotation of the job. The Job rotation policy had never been the general practice of this company in the past. The court also noted that the inspector position does not exist for the purpose of having employees rotate between lines 7, 8 and 9, the use of a rotation system had no bearing on the number of employees needed to perform the work, and rotating between lines is not a highly desirable function for which plaintiff was exactly hired, Indeed, it is the contrasting of a specialized skill of the employees. The court stopped short of actually deciding that job rotation is not an essential function of this job and leaving that determination for the
In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner 's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis.
8. Principle of Law: The court states, the first of the City’s contentions is easily dismissed. The jury found that Bozeman had notice of the harassment, and it is well established that we must accept a jury’s factual finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. The City’s second claim—that as a matter of law Bozeman’s knowledge should not have been imputed to the City—poses a more significant question concerning the limits of potential liability under Title VII. This court has noted that “the type and extent of notice necessary to impose liability on an employer under Title VII are the subject of some uncertainty.”