My first take-away came reading the Poore v. Peterbilt of Bristol Case. While I was reading this case‚ I was sure that Mr. Poore had established a claim under GINA since he was terminated three days after he disclosed his wife had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. I assumed he was covered under GINA because it is unlawful to discharge an employee because of the genetic tests of an individual’s family members. This was an important take-away for me because it helped me understand what constitutes
Premium Management Employment Ethics
that his termination was a combination of legitimate reasons for example reducing costs with illegitimate reasons incapacity under a mixed motives theory. Question 3: Falstaff does not meet the requirements to make the claim. According to Grindle v. Watkins‚ courts use the McDonnell Douglas test to evaluate an ADA claim.
Premium Employment Management Law
Case Brief: R v.Shankar Citation: Regina v. Corey Shankar‚ 2007 ONCA 280 (CanLII) Facts: The accused was driving his car without the required laminated taillights when officers pulled him over late October 2004. The police asked Shankar for his licence‚ registration‚ and insurance. The accused handed over a licence in the name of Jason Singh‚ the insurance information handwritten on an informal yellow sticky note‚ and a photocopy of the vehicle registration. When inquired about the spelling of
Premium Appeal English-language films Judgment
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant 1. Heading a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 2009 (April 21‚ 2009) 2. Statement of Facts a. Tucson‚ Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant‚ who after a records check‚ revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Schmerber v. California Case Brief Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966) FACTS: Armando Schmerber‚ the petitioner‚ had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment‚ a police officer smelled liquor on petitioner’s breath and noticed other symptoms of drunkenness so the officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal United States
A recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act‚ mens rea is a guilty mind‚ and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye‚ he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Sheppard v. Maxwell‚ was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant’s right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular‚ the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife‚ of which he was convicted‚ because of the trial judge’s failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive‚ pervasive‚ and
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Crime
The case of Fare v. Michael concentrates on what the Miranda case law did for an adults 5th Amendment rights‚ but now deals with a juvenile and an added element (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The defendant in this case was 16 years old and had been charged with murder (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The juvenile defendant did not ask for an attorney‚ but did ask for his probation officer as he was currently on probation (Elrod & Ryder‚ 2014). The police denied his request to have his probation officer contacted
Premium Law Miranda v. Arizona United States Constitution
Tatro v. University of Minnesota (2012) involved free speech and human cadavers‚ two topics that naturally incite curiosity. The Mortuary Science Program at the University of Minnesota is a Bachelor of Science program for upperclass undergraduate students. The program’s mission is to prepare students to become licensed funeral directors and morticians. The anatomy course of Mortuary Science Program relies on the generosity of individuals who choose to donate their bodies to science after they have
Premium University Facebook Social media
Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court of the United States 129 S. Ct. 2658; 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009) April 22‚2009‚ Argued June 29‚ 2009‚ Decided This 2009 Supreme Court decision was a result of alleged racial discrimination with regard to internal promotions of nineteen New Haven‚ Connecticut firefighters. New Haven city officials invalidated test results when no Blacks scored high enough to meet the minimum score necessary to be eligible for promotion. Therefore‚ the White and Hispanic candidates
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution