California originally passed the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) on September 18, 1959 with amendments made overtime as issues came up and amendments were needed (Fair Employment and Housing Acts). The FEHA prohibits discrimination in employment based on the following: Race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, mental and physical disability, medical condition, age, pregnancy, denial of medical care and family care leave, or pregnancy disability leave. Additionally, the FEHA protects employees from retaliation for claiming illegal discrimination against one of these categories. Employees are given one year from the date of the discrimination incident
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
The American Indian Movement was formed and it was influenced due to the other civil rights groups speaking their mind about the oppression they found to be evident within the major of their culture. Martinez v. Santa Clara one of the most cited court cases focusing on the suppression of equal rights among all, Native American sovereignty, and the ability to govern over own domestic disputes. Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo a landmark case although no differences in stressors, cause Native American civil rights activists to speak out against the right of suffrage, ability for self-discrimination and Native American equal rights. The Native Americans have dealt with countless amounts of obstacles, however the government allows for federally funding
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
California was heard by the Supreme Court, Riley stated that a smartphone and whatever it may contain does not provide a threat to police officers, therefore People v. Diaz does not apply. Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, served as Riley’s representation (Riley v. California, n.d.). He boiled his argument down to the searching of a cell phone is nothing more than an invasion of privacy, as most people now have their entire life on their personal devices (Liptak, 2014).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed soon after the milestone March on Washington. In the largest march ever held in the United States, people of all races and colors gathered together to show legislature that racism would no longer be acceptable in society. Title VII, the section which deals with discrimination in the workforce is one small part of the larger piece of legislation. Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act, quickly became the most important arbiter of rights under the new law (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001). The workforce has drastically changed since the passage of the act. Women and minorities are engaged in employment now more than ever. With the passage of Title VII, the door was opened to prohibiting job discrimination and creating fairness in employment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001). Soon after, protection against discrimination based on age and disability was provided.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was originally enacted in 1938. The law is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, and includes 5 major provisions that protect employees. (TEXT) The five provisions include: coverage, minimum wage, overtime pay, youth employment, and record keeping. Coverage refers to the types of workers whom are protected by the FLSA. The FLSA also handles compensation issues like minimum wage, commissions, bonuses, expenses like room and board and other various deductions. To ensure that employees receive adequate compensation for working additional hours the FLSA has developed rules governing overtime pay. The Act also created and implemented rules governing youth
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
In the 1960’s California experienced reverence through the reputation of being a promising great state. The increasing population as well as the massive publicity, contributed in highlighting this notion. However, in 2011, California no longer holds the same reputation in the eyes of its residents. With a current state deficit of $25.4 Billion, many Californians believe that the state is hopeless and can no longer regain to its past stardom. Famed Historian, Kevin Starr argues that California has lost its promise entirely; however, California has not lost its promise entirely for the fact that California is still the eighth largest economy in the world. California is able to function even with a dysfunctional government and institutional structure. California still has the potential to recover its reputation as a great promising state. By tackling the state’s dilemma, we are able to understand why and how California lost its greatness. Once we analyze the core problems of the state, such as the initiative process, the state legislature, and misrepresentation of the public, we will have a better understanding of how to tackle the issue.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
Women have the wonderful ability to bring a new life into this world and are granted maternity leave, a certain amount of time after birth to be away from the labor force. However, maternity leave was not always available to women because of the low levels of employed and educated females. In 1978 changing gender norms and increased female labor involvement influenced the passing of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibiting employment discrimination of women due to pregnancy (Smith, Downs, and O’Connell 3). After this legislation, a higher percentage of women in the United States were not only educated but also employed. In 1987, a critical Supreme Court case (California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra) in California defined
“The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was created in 1938 to establish a minimum wage and a limit on the number of hours which may be worked in a standard work week. It also provides standards for equal pay, overtime pay, record keeping, and child labor.” This law was created during a time period of great financial and political turmoil.
Currently, eight states have passed laws requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. In California, providing reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers has been law since 2000. Pregnancy discrimination charges in California have dropped significantly since the law was passed, indicating that the law helps employers and employees resolve issues without litigation (“Pregnancy Discrimination”).