Case Study: Wisneski V. University Pitt At Greensburg

I researched the Friedrichs vs California Teachers Assn case which proposes to be a game

James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service

Title: Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca and Cornell University et al., 839 F. Supp. 2d. 537 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

The Courts should strictly interpret the U.S Constitution to prevent personal judgement and opinions from changing a fair decision. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the board of education of the West Virginia Legislature attempted to make the pledge of allegiance as a mandatory activities in public schools and refusal to participate will be dealt with in some way. Two Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not allowed to pledge to symbols according to their beliefs, were expelled for not saluting the flag. The decision of the Supreme Court was “constructed” based on the first amendment that states that promises no restriction on free exercise of religion and therefore the mandatory salute was banned. If the courts were

This article discussion the duty to warn and protect in the state of Texas. Texas is one state that rejected the national standard set by Tarasoff. This article describes the difference between the two cases Tarasoff v. Regents and Thapar v. Zezulka in the duty to warn. The authors describe the case Tarasoff v. Regents case as what the state of California established their precedent for mental health professional regarding the duty to warn. In the state of California mental health professional have obligation to warn and protect third parties when a client reveals an intent to harm (Barbee, Ekleberry, and Villalobos, 2007; Corey, Corey, & Callanan., 2007). Whereas, in the state of Texas mental health professional do not have a duty to warn

The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.

Title: Rose v. Council for better education. Supreme Court of Kentucky, 1989 790 S.W 2d 186.

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

Quinnipiac University issued a student handbook to each student with alcohol policies prohibiting “the purchase, possession, or consumption, regardless of location, of beer, wine, or distilled spirits by persons under the age of 21.” Pawlowski (freshman) attended a party at Delta Sigma Phi fraternity, which served alcohol. Pawlowski left the party intoxicated. While crossing the street he was struck by a motor vehicle and died as a result of the injuries.

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

The court case, Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, held on the 28th of January, 1998, Regarded the matter of the legality of NCAA student athletes being drug tested. In this case Plaintiff Jennifer Hill, a student athlete at Stanford University who objected to the NCAA’s student athlete drug testing program. Hill cited Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution; granting California citizens the right to privacy. Hill is not alone in this objection to the program instituted by the NCAA. These students in objection primarily oppose the program believing that the tests athletes must submit to are so extension and reveal extensive personal medical information they may wish to keep private. The defense’s counter argument is that the NCAA has a “legitimate regulatory objectives in conducting testing for proscribed drugs,” citing both student-athlete safety and maintaining the sanctity of collegiate

If you are unsatisfied with this decision, then you have the right to appeal. This appeal should again be made in writing, and your employer must arrange another meeting.

Based on the presented facts, it is the opinion of this writer that the educator’s termination will be upheld and the defendant will win the case. Using Fowler v. Board of Education, 819 F. 2d 657 (1987), as precedent, the actions of the plaintiff caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment. While educators are afforded the right of academic freedom “to speak freely about their subjects, to experiment with new ideas, and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods” (Hillman & Trevaskis, 2014, p. 7-12), one should err on the side of caution, as “great deference is paid to the local board of education since they have the power to determine the curriculum and the materials used”