Amendment 8, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Furthermore, this was written by James Madison. Nevertheless, this amendment impacts the people by not allowing one to be harmed once they’ve committed a
Because this amendment seems to be far removed from Americans ' modern-day lives, should it be repealed? Why or why not? No, I do not think it should be repealed. Just because it hasn`t ever been used doesn`t mean that it should be removed. It doesn`t hurt anyone by keeping the Amendment.
Bottom line Employers aren't prohibited from disciplining employees while they are on FMLA leave as long as the leave isn't the reason for the discipline. Simply put, FMLA leave cannot be used as a shield to deflect warranted discipline. Krista J. Griffith and Lynn Mueller, editors of Minnesota Employment Law Letter, can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or
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
This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government. This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the
Concessions fully denies that it violated the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. by not properly compensating Mr. Berkeley for any non-tipped duties. The FLSA permits tipped employees to perform related duties that are not directed toward producing tips. See 29 C.F.R.
Chapter 13 is titled "Interrogations, Admissions, and Confessions." The case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established the Miranda warnings. This ruling requires that any statements from individuals obtained by violating that individual's Miranda rights are not admissible in court, whether or not they were obtained voluntarily from that individual. There are no specific words an individual has to say in order to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, although courts have found some phrases to be too ambiguous to invoke these rights, and many courts do not require law enforcement clarify an individual's intent. There are several psychological tactics that violate a person's due process rights.
Random assignment process ensured that both groups sample’s characteristics (low income families, living in same areas, similar environmental context, etc.) are preserved and the control group members did not vary at the beginning of the study, which guaranteed that the only difference between both the treatment and control group was that the treatment group had access to New Hope. Consequently, any significant differences in outcomes that arise a course of the experiment (i.e., employment rates or children achievement) between the two groups can be ascribed to New Hope intervention. Finally, probable barriers to working such as drug abuse and/or mental health were not treated by the research, because New Hope was not designed to address such factors despites the potential impact these variables could had on the
Legalzoom.com, Inc. 2007, states, “The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.” This statement shown allows the amusement park to refuse service to not just blacks but to Asians, Mexicans, and any race of there choice. Glen Echo Amusement Park is not breaking this law because they refuse service to other races also. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow private businesses to refuse service based on race. However, Glen Echo Amusement Park refuse service to Clifton in 1959, therefore the Civil Rights Act had not happened yet. So it was okay to refuse service to anyone of their choice.
The U.S. Supreme Court is affirmed by ruling in favor of Ferguson ruling that mandatory racial segregation was not in violation of the 14th Amendment. During the court appeal the term “separate, but equal was never used; therefore, the court’s ruling was able to established that principle as a means of justifying segregation. The stamp of approval was placed on the doctrine of “separate but equal” because Homer Plessy’s 13th and 14th Amendment arguments were rejected.