This demonstrates two issues, first they were acting for two or more employees and not for personal gain. In addition, they ever engaged in any form once of violence or a disproportionate loss or disruption to their employer relative to the seriousness of the employees’ complain grievance. However, the employer could manage to argue that the employee abandoned their jobs. However, as long as this was a concerted and lawful act, the employees are not required to offers the management with an opportunity to resolve a complaint. In addition, the decision would not be justified because it would be observed to be an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP).
In response to the suit filed, Betty’s lawyer filed for a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction does not impede the trial courts reach to try out-of-state defendants. The ensuing issue for the trial court is to determine in-personam jurisdiction. This form of jurisdiction focuses on the residence, location, and activities of the defendant (Mallor, 30). Traditional in-personam jurisdiction would not apply to Betty.
Nonetheless, the lack of an audio recording or other supporting evidence to determine disrespectful conduct by Flores towards Aguiar, or Mr. Agustin, relies on two different accounts of the events. While Aguiar’s account of the events and credibility appear stronger, it could be argued that Flores was merely disagreeing with Aguiar and was vigorously defending her course of action as the handling officer. Based upon the facts discovered during this investigation and a preponderance of the known evidence, I find this allegation; NOT
I feel that Redding’s rights were definitely violated. There was no reason to search a student based off of a tip from another. I feel at most Redding should have been questioned, made empty her pockets, and possibly patted down by a female staff member. In my opinion the administrators should have been held liable for their decisions. It doesn’t matter that the search fell under school policies.
McNeil, while filing numerous Petitions for Contempt, had a substantial justification for filing the same because he was denied visitation with his children, contrary to court Order which had not been modified or challenged by filing a petition timely. The Court notes that, although Mrs. McNeil was not found in contempt of this Court, Mr. McNeil had the right to challenge Mrs. McNeil 's actions. Given the context of the actions within the scope of this case, Mrs. McNeil was not found to be in willful contempt of this Court 's Orders. Mrs. McNeil had other avenues to act in the best interest of the children, i.e., file an emergency motion for modification of visitation; regardless of what she could have done, her actions contributed to the litigation. Thus, the petitions, as with all of Mr. McNeil 's filings after the September 2010 hearing, are found to have substantial justification in fact and law.
The Court held that firing Roe for his behavior and "speech" did not violate the First Amendment. Government employers, the Court wrote, could restrict their employees ' speech in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the public. However, government employees had the right to speak on matters of public concern, such as on
Therefore, the school was in the right assuming such a symbol could indeed cause racial tensions to flare. Peter’s personal interaction of his political speech does not need to be taken into consideration. Here case law supports the school’s preemptive measures because the flag could be interpreted in a racial way that can cause a foreseeable issue. Adding to this, the second case, Scott v. School Board (2003), argued in the 11th circuit court that one cannot ban political speech if there is no prior recording of significant issues with this speech. However, it was found that even a single instance of racial problems or significant racial tension is grounds to claim a reasonable forecast of problems.
What Ethical Dilemmas Does Alternative Policy Raise for You as a Professional Social Worker? Our proposed, alternative policy poses no ethical dilemmas, and in fact is in support of social worker values. Furthermore, it acknowledges that denying benefits for substance abusers is not going to provide the necessary treatment that substance abusers need to get better. It also seeks to address the substance abuse issues from a treatment perspective in order to get to the root of the problem. What Are Your Conclusions About This Analysis and Implications for
As a matter of public policy, the employer should not be required to reinstate the unlawfully terminated employee, due to said persons being undocumented workers. Although the employer signed an agreement to reinstate the workers, by knowingly reinstating the undocumented workers, the employer will face additionally chargers as the firm will be in violation of both IRCA and the Legal Arizona Worker Act laws. It is never public or legal policy to violate laws in order to protect the employment rights of individuals that are not legally residing in the country. If the workers are allowed to be reinstated, then it would set a precedent in which undocumented workers would be pursuing the same rights as legally employed individuals. The law the NLRB enforces gives employees the right to act together to try to improve their pay and working conditions, with or without a union.
Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 is intended to provide protection and relief against discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. (EEOC, 1964a) The argument is that Anna’s claim against her employers is valid on the basis of gender discrimination (EEOC, 1964b). Anna’s supervisor Michael would never have taken the actions that he did with Anna had she been a man. Once those actions were demonstrated to have an adverse reaction on both the work environment and employment, no remediation actions were taken
To conclude, according to Nathaniel Belanger statement in court the accident could not be prevented. But it did not seem to hold up because there was no evidence to prove his story. The court took sides with Swift Transportation Incorporation because they felt that Swift did not slander Belanger and had every right to report the accident on the Data Website. I feel that if Belanger had a good attorney than his attorney would have found the other people that was involve in the accident to help prove his case and maybe even get his job back. This is the case of Nathaniel Belanger v. Swift Transportation and my opinion on the
“Although the company had failed to prove that his employer had a discriminatory motive, the Supreme Court reversed the decision” (Disparate Impact, 2016). “The employer’s workforce did not reflect the racial, ethnic, or gender percentage of the population the area does not prove disparate impact” (Disparate Impact, 2016). To prove a claim of disparate impact, “the employee must show that an employment practice does not select members of a protected class in a proportion smaller than their percentage in the pool of actual applicants” (Disparate Impact,
Thank you for providing a great example of an institution’s response to the breach of a coach’s contract. After researching the case of Kent State v. Ford, it was apparent that the terms of Ford’s agreement were not interpreted by the coach in the same manner in which the terms were written by the institution. Ford is quoted as stating that the liquidated damages clause was not enforceable (Farkas, 2015). Whereas liquated damages are defined as such: The purpose of a liquidated damages clause is to ensure that the failure of one party to follow the contract does not unfairly hurt the other and the amount agreed to must be a reasonable estimate of any potential damage a breach of contract might cause (faircontracts.org, n.d.). Kent State argued
I. NO, EN VOGUE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENFORCE MS. RAMIREZ’S NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE A LEGITIMATE BUSINSINESS INTEREST EXTIST. A restrictive covenant is designed to protect both the employer and the employee. The employer’s business interest is protected from unfair competition where the employee has the right to earn a living while still competing in a free society. A restrictive covenant is justified; if the person seeking enforcement of contracts can enforce the contract, if the contract is signed by the person whom enforcement is sought, “is reasonable in time, area, and in the line of business.” They must also plead and prove that one or more legitimate business interest exist which justify the restrictive covenant.