Case Study: Lawsuit Against US DOL

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

The court decided that their needed to be further proceedings for Maureen Davis under negligence and the Alabama State law of having sufficient evidence against Hardees restaurant under Flagstar who didn’t have a strong enough backing or argument to defend that fact that there

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), “the Commission required that petitioner [Florence Dolan] dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year floodplain for improvement of a storm drainage system along Fanno Creek and that she dedicate an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway” in order to relieve traffic congestion to and from her plumbing and electric supply store (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 2). This case differs, but in both Nollan and Dolan, the City failed to make an individualized determination that the required dedications are related to the projected impact of the proposed development. Surely, in both cases the nexus test was used to determine if the

On August 11, 1998, United States Amoco Corporation (Amoco) and The British Petroleum Company p.l.c. (BPC) announced the BPC merger with Amoco. With a combined number of participants of 40,000 and $7 billion investment assets under management, the merged pension and savings plan of the new company is viewed by both management and employees as a bellwether of the success of the merger. Therefore, the new investment team must be able to “harmonize” the very different two original plans.

Around November 2008, Dillard’s engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Cary, North Carolina location in violation of the Age Discrimination of Employment Act when it terminated Virginia Keene, a 61 year old woman, from her position ("Dillard 's sued by EEOC for age discrimination", 2010). She was an Area Sales Manager and was in charge of the Children’s and Accessories Departments and oversaw the sales associates who worked in her two departments. While she worked at Dillard’s, her managers repeatedly made verbal remarks to the fact that she was much older than the other five Area

This lawsuit was from May 2016. Plaintiffs on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the LaMettry’s 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan brought a lawsuit to recover financial losses suffered by the Plan and obtain injunctive and other equitable relief for the Plan from LaMettry’s (Plan Sponsor) and their CFO, Steven P. Daniel and President Joanne LaMettry (collective trustees) based on breaching their fiduciary duties.

In September of this year, the second circuit’s decision in Berman v Neo@Ogilvy LLC created a circuit split with the fifth circuit’s 2013 decision in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C. Specifically, the two circuits disagreed about whether a whistleblower must report externally to qualify for protection from employer retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act. The dispute arises from a conflict between two subsections of Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provisions, namely the definition section and subsection (iii) of the anti-retaliation provision.

Identified in “General Business Organizations” and has been a successful group in Texas since 1994 is the Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR). Business leaders formed this group and were determined to change what they perceived as “Texas’ Wild West Litigation Environment” by changing the state’s tort laws. Torts are wrongful acts; in the Texans for Lawsuit Reform, taking away the right of a citizen who loses in a civil lawsuit can be forced to pay an extra amount as punishment. The Texans for Lawsuit reform is a volunteered-led organization that “seeks to create a civil justice system that discourages non-meritorious lawsuits or outrageous claims for damages” (votesmart.org). TLRPAC, which stands for Texans for Lawsuit Reform Political Action Committee

At stake is Mr. Whitman’s 4th Amendment liberty, which Sell was implemented to protect. In order to safeguard the liberty interests of sick defendants in Sell, the Supreme Court implemented four factors that the government must establish before it may forcibly medicate sick defendant to render the defendant competent to stand trial (citation needed). First, it must prove that an “important government interests are at stake.” Second, it must establish with clear and convincing evidence that the “involuntary medication will significantly further” those interests. Third, the government must demonstrate that “the involuntary medication is necessary to those interests.” Fourth, it must demonstrate that the “administration of drugs is medically appropriate.” Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 169, 180-181 (2003).

It’s essential for plan sponsors to understand how this new standard will impact their business practices as well. According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce issue brief, the rule “affects how investment advice is provided to every 401(k) plan, every IRA, and every rollover or distribution to or from either.” The impact of this reform is sweeping, and given the forecasted movement of 401(k) and IRA money over the next 20 years, as baby boomers retire, much

The treatment of conflicts of interest and other ethical dilemmas that may arise in investment decisions.

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.

Due to their fear of being deported, there is no actual data regarding the number of undocumented persons in the country. Yet, census data shows that there are over 11.4 million Latino children under the age of eighteen in the United States. (Lopez, 2015) Additionally, the growing population of Latina/o children and their fight for education, a New Civil Rights Movement has emerged as undocumented students fight for access and recognition in higher education. Undocumented immigrants’ access to higher education can be a highly politicized and controversial issue, especially depending on the state nation’s economy and the political atmosphere in the country at the time. (Gildersleeve, 2010)

In a 2010 National Review article titled “Chris Dodd’s Big, Misguided Bill” Malpass argued against the value of creating the consumer financial protection bureau, writing that the Obama administration should “streamline and concentrate” existing consumer protection regulators, a step that he said “would result in a reduction of government jobs.”

Plyler v. Doe was a case in which a Texas statue withheld local and state funding for the education of immigrants who were deemed illegal aliens. In this case, the plaintiffs represented school-aged children of Mexican dissent. These children were just recently admitted to the U.S.A. Since the students were undocumented people the school district asked parents to parents to pay $1,000, which would cover the expenses for the school, and enroll them into school. This case was then brought to the district court which found that the reason for higher admission rates wasn’t because of the increase in immigrants, but the increase of people in the surrounding areas, which were legal residents. Because of this the district court decided that illegal