The appellant essential accommodation claim went to trial but court excluded evidence regarding to disability. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However the issue should have been decided by jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual. The central issue in this case is Hershey’s obligation
Essentially they assert that Article II provides no basis to override the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to establish new standards that conflict with legislative enactments. Subsequently they contend that because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard and counties were using different standards to decide which votes would count, Florida was not treating all its citizens equally under the law thus violating the Equal Protection Clause. This was problematic in that two voters could have marked their ballot in the same manner but in one county it would be deemed acceptable and in another it would be rejected. It is critical to note that "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104
In this 7-2 case was the first to Craig v. Boren, which stated that Oklahoma having two different drinking ages for males and females was unconstitutional as it did not provide justification as to why the genders had different standards (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a). Justice Thomas did not concur or descent in this case but instead chose to abstain from ruling on the case due to the fact that his son was a cadet at VMI at the time of the case (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Doing this, Justice Thomas made sure his personal opinions and thoughts would not influence his decision and therefore he upheld the integrity of the Supreme
The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment provided criminal defendants with a right to counsel who provides "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." The Court of Appeals outlined the standards for judging whether a defense
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
Talk America suggests Douglas “has meaningful alternative choices for telephone service” to discredit the unfairness of the arbitration clause despite that fact that The California Court of Appeals found that an arbitration clause in a revised contract is unenforceable against existing customers. The Court also stated that California does recognize the availability of alternatives as a genuine argument against procedural unconscionability, and so the contract cannot be enforceable as a matter of law. In regards to the class action waiver provision, the Court found that the determination of a contract’s substantive unconscionability relies on the facts presented during the case proceedings, which the district could not have had when making their
This is because design is intended to make the product appealing, not to identify a brand. The Lanham Act does not include inherently distinctive marks. Justice Scalia was quoted saying the following, "Consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves by a rule of law that facilitates plausible threats of suit against new entrants based upon alleged inherent
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.
a) Nordenfelt established the general principle of ‘public interest’ that allows a person to continue their trade freely, making any restrictive covenants void. However, this rule can be upheld if two conditions are complied with: a legitimate interest, and reasonableness. Utilising the principle, the validity of the clause needs to be identified to advise both parties. In addition, if the clause is rendered void using the principle,severance could make it valid and enforceable. A legitimate interest is ‘the nature of trade connection or in nature of trade secrets’.
Aaron hired the equipment as a consumer to refurbish his office premise. He was not dealing with this nature of business. Under UCTA, the exclusion clause was void to exclude the liability for personal injury due to negligence. Minor injuries were caused to Aaron due to negligence maintenance by EFG. Hence, Aaron was not bound by the clause, and he can claim for his personal injury damage.