A company with a policy that says the best candidate is always hired should re-word that policy. A company does not want to get a reputation for abusing or discriminating against individuals with disabilities. In this country, such individuals are considered capable of doing the same things as those without disabilities. The United States has adopted a caring, understanding, accommodating attitude towards these individuals. Companies within this country should mirror the values of the country. The policy should state that under most circumstances, the most qualified candidate will be chosen for a vacant position. However, a clause explaining the guidelines of the ADA should be included. The company should make it very clear where they stand when it comes to reassignment. Is it automatic if the positions are comparable and the employee is qualified, or does the employee have to compete with other, qualified applicants? Posting the guidelines clearly helps avoid misunderstandings in the future. This case opens the door for employers to state that other forms of accommodation are not necessary and the ADA policies...
The word "reasonable" is vague. While one company may contend that it is reasonable to reassign a recently hearing impaired person to a comparable position where the loss of hearing will not affect performance, another employer may think that being forced to move an applicant into a vacant position is not reasonable. The case could lead towards forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The company can always claim another candidate is more qualified. Disabilities are limiting, and a disabled person simply may not be able to compete. Once a case like this comes along, other employers may be tempted to use similar arguments to deny disabled employees reasonable employment. The problem in this case is the argument that someone else was more qualified, and the disabled person was allowed to compete for the position. An open position will state minimum requirements not maximum requirements. As long as the minimum is met, that should be enough to qualify someone for a position. To contend that another individual somehow exhibited a greater degree of the minimum requirements seems absurd.
7). This point brings up one of the larger issues suggested by the opinion (which will be discussed in greater detail later), namely, the fact that the conflict between the law's position on jurisdiction and this kind of estoppel is "yet another case where the government has 'taken entirely irreconcilable positions regarding the jurisdiction of the federal courts," leading to increased litigation and cost (Lettow, 2012, p. 7). Thus,
S.B. 1070, ACA, AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption S.B. 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment was intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government, thereby preserving some measure of state autonomy (Lash, 2006). The Tenth Amendment accomplishes this by stating explicitly that the federal government can only exercise those powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are left to the
..In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." (Smith, 2004; p.5) Smith relates that a
CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P, 2009 WL 2430820 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2009). (2010). Harvard Law Review, 123(3), p.752-759. This article discusses the civil rights case Coleman v. Schwarzenegger wherein the plaintiff sued California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for unconstitutional prison conditions. The lawsuit was examined in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The court ruled that authorities should
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), previously the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), that by the time 2011, health care expenditure will arrive at $2.8 trillion, as well as it will bill for 17% of the Gross Domestic Product. As a result, it is no revelation that white-collar offenders observe health care deception as a rewarding effort. Certainly, the General Accounting Office ("GAO") quotes that such deception accounts for up
Oreto, 37 F.3d 739 (1st Cir. 1994). The 2st Circuit rejected the defendant's claim that requiring two predicate acts for conviction under one theory of liability but only one act for conviction under "loan sharking," violated equal protection. Due Process. The forfeiture provisions of RICO have been criticized for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Numerous cases have rejected this criticism including U.S. v. Nichols, (10th Cir.
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now