Case Study: Adair V. United States

Brown v. Board of education combined five separate cases, Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v. Belton, and Bolling v. Sharpe. The case was sponsored by the NAACP.

However, the ruling in this case and others like it prove that employers can, in fact, be bound by articles written in an employee handbook when disciplining or discharging an employee. An abysmally written handbook can greatly jeopardize an employer’s right to terminate at will. Trends show that courts are increasingly acknowledging enforceable promises in the past employment practices of firms, in employer handbooks and in oral commitments. In addition to including an at-will disclaimer in employee handbooks, employers should also require employees to sign an acknowledgment confirming that they understand and agree to employment-at-will and that at-will employment can at any time be modified by a written agreement. Personnel manuals should explicitly state that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment at will. All written policies should also be free of any language that could be considered as a guarantee of job security. To be sure that these common pitfalls are avoided employers must retain the service of a labor attorney to draft and air-tight employee manual and acknowledgment

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that set the standard for determining whether a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by a lawyer's alleged incompetence during trial. On September 25,1789 the Sixth Amendment was introduced into the United States Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, and on December 15, 1791 it was ratified. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right “[T]o have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

United States v. Morrison was orally tried at the United States Western District of Virginia court, on January, 11, 2000. Where Christy Brzonkala being the plaintiff, prosecuted both college Varsity football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford for sexually assaulting her within thirty minutes of meeting her at the Virginia Tech University. She complained to the school staff faculty members about her tragic incident. After making several reproaches to the school and being ignored she decided to withdraw, especially after uncovering in a newspaper that Morrison would be returning to campus in the fall of 1995. Proceeding the events she then filed a lawsuit under Brzonkala v Morrison in which talks about the

A muddy shoe print was use to link an unnamed man who was on the run from the police to his vehicle which was carrying 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. Police detective Chad Larner attempted to pull over this man in a Mazda for speeding but he would not stop. The man was eventually able to lose Larner. He then parked the car, got out and tried to hide. The police later found the car and found the man two blocks away. He attempted to bribe a young woman to walk with him by saying that he would give her $40. The woman told the police that he told her that he was in a police chase in which he was not the driver and he was trying to hide from the police. When the police searched the car they found four bags of the 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. The police also

1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the

On June 26, 2003, a Supreme Court decision reserved a Texas law preventing consensual, special sexual activity between lesbians and guys. The Court ruled, in Lawrence v Texas. The court mentioned the essential right to confidentiality, and also the right of lesbians and gays have enjoy equal protection on the law. The opinion also reserved the disreputable 1986 resolution in the case of Hardwick v Bowers that the court had upheld a like Georgia homosexualism statute.

I met with Wayne and Frank on June 30 and they provided me with these extensions of the administrative leave of absence for Michael Kuchar for the period May 22 through June 19. They suspect that they are holding back on reinstating him until they employ a new Assistant to the Superintendent at Cumberland who is a retired state trooper. They pointed out that Kuchar has only been receiving his straight salary and has not received his lost overtime but after consideration we decided that the best route to take would be to file a grievance when Kuchar is reinstated rather than do it now and potential encourage the Town not to reinstate him.

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.

1.What is required in order for the police to legally detain, question, and search a citizen without a warrant? How is this different from what is required for an officer to effect an arrest? Finally, what does Herman Goldstein tell us about police use of arrest (OTHER than the initiation of prosecution)?

When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees, ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially, if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason, critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper, “Employment at Will and Due Process”, discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW, and shows Werhane’s supportive view to Due Process. In contrast, EAW is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. In my paper, I will attempt to develop my argument in favor of Employment at Will that could improve flexibility and efficiency of

Based on facts and legal laws, the judge can look over the evidence and rules and make a decision. The employment-at-will doctrine clearly states that the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason. There are many exceptions to the employment-at-will

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) involved the issue of the regulation of physical surveillance and transaction surveillance; compared to communications surveillance, legal regulation of physical and transactional is minimal. This case was a landmark decision on the scope of the Fourth Amendment. Charlie Katz was indicted for transmitting wagering information by telephone; Katz moved to suppress the conversations as the agents had not obtained a warrant authorizing the use of the listening equipment. The government gave two reasons that the Fourth Amendment protections did not apply in this case. The first was the Constitution only prohibits unreasonable searches of “houses, persons, papers and effects,” and the bugged phone

Employers have the right to terminate employees at any time for any reason, as long as the termination was not based on the employee's race, color religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status ("The At-Will Presumption And," n.d.). The employer could have felt that the two were no longer needed for the job because of the problems they were causing. The employees abandoned their jobs and left without permission, which would cause the employer to hire other employees. They could possibly go with this approach by claiming the two employees did not have permission to leave their jobs. If the two employees were having problems which they felt necessary to protest, they could have discussed it with the employer. If the employees spoke with their employer about the situation, and the employer failed to rectify the situation, and hindered the employees from protested, we would possibly have a violation of employees rights. However, because of the circumstances of the case, and the attempts the employers made to accommodate all the employees, this looks like a case of two employees causing unnecessary conflict. If an employer feels as if an employee is not performing their jobs proficiently, or not conducting themselves according to the company's policies, they have every right to terminate the

The video link is the place the victim is taken to a room within the court building usually and is linked up to the courtroom where the trial is taking place, like skyping. So, the victim sits in front of a television screen and the camera is focused on them, for the barristers and sometimes judge, in the court to ask questions and the victim can answer, without being in the actual court. This special measure enables the victim to be in a safe environment away from the courtroom. This also in some circumstances can be used when the victim lives a distance away from the court. The victim can use a different court near them to link up with the court which the trial is being held. However, the criticism of this special measure is everyone on