Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Danger of social media in today's society
Family medical leave act policy analysis
Ethics of family medical leave act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Danger of social media in today's society
The case I found interesting was about Rodney Jones of Florida. He was employed as an activity director at Accentia Health, a long-term care skilled nursing facility. Jones supervised five assistant activity directors, and his job duties included decorated the building for events, maintained calendars, charts and patients care plans, according court documents, Jones had an MRI on his right shoulder in August of 2014. The MRI revealed that Jones needed surgery, which was scheduled for September 26, 2014. Jones notified Accentia Health of his diagnosis and applied for a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act. This would allow him to take off the necessary time for his surgery and rehabilitation. The request was granted, and his …show more content…
Jones didn’t use good judgment. He should have taken into consideration that he was on leave for many months for a medical situation and posting vacation updates was truly inconsiderate to the employer and his coworkers. Even though it is possibly that Mr. Jones, did need an additional 30 days for therapy, but the time should have been used for that purpose. This behavior makes Mr. Jones appear deceitful by taking advantage of FMLA for his own personal gain. Especially, since Accentia gave him the chance to explain his position prior to termination, but he declined the opportunity. Mr. Jones is guilty of being irresponsible. Furthermore, Jones behavior was stupid, and he violated the golden rules of social media THINK BEFORE YOU POST. All social media platform provides information regarding using the platforms responsibly, but most users ignore this critical information. Also, many company have Social media policies that employees neglect to review, and this can lead to termination that can be avoided. In closing the case of Bland vs Roberts that was assigned in the weekly reading is proof that the First Amendment must be reevaluated to take into consideration the voice of social media, because it has changed the way that express their
In 1980, Julio Gonzalez immigrated to New York and met Lydia Feliciano, who would become his girlfriend. 10 years later, Gonzalez lost his job, was dumped by Feliciano, and got drunk. He visited his ex-girlfriend when she was working as a coat-check at an illegal bar in the Bronx called Happy Land Social Club. After Gonzalez was thrown out by the bouncer, he bought gasoline at a nearby gas station and set fire to the stairs, which was the only exit. 87 people were killed. Gonzalez was visited in his apartment by police officers, he confessed to his crimes, and was taken to the police station where he was promptly arrested. The defense attorney claimed that the defendant was unlawfully arrested so his statements were invalid and that even if
The case of Tennessee vs Reeves talks about two youngsters named Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman who were students at the West Carrol Middle School who were planning to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). They had planned to poison the teacher with rat poison by putting it in the teacher’s drink (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). There were other students who had found out, and the plot had been reported to the teacher and principal of the school (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). The students were convicted of attempt to commit secondary degree murder based on the fact that the poison was brought to the school and if it wasn’t because the plot to killed Miss. Geiger was interrupted the crime would have taken place.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
In the case of Yerkey v Jones (Yerkey v Jones), the judgment of Dixon J established a principle that operates in certain circumstances where a married woman provides a guarantee for her husband. While the principle has come under a significant amount of criticism in more recent times, it was reapplied in the case of Garcia v National Australia Bank .
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Two of the most significant inmates rights cases in the past century are Sandin v. Conner and Whitley v. Albers.
Congress in 1990 enacted the Gun-Free School Zone Act, making it a federal offence to possess a firearm in a school zone. Congress relied on the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify passage of legislation as a way of stemming the rising tide of gun related incidents in public schools.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) provides certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave and job protection for childbirth, adoption or foster care; to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, or parent; or for an employee’s own serious illness (Cañas & Sondak, 2011). It also requires that their group health benefits remain intact during the unpaid leave of absence. The employee must have worked for the employer for at least a year and must have earned 1,250 hours of service during the previous 12 months ((Cañas & Sondak, 2011, pg. 70).
The balancing act of family and work can be very difficult at times. At some point in everyone’s life, he or she will need to take time off of work to deal with family matters. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 was created to help employees find a balance between the challenging demands of work and home. This Act allows eligible workers that require time off for personal reasons or family emergencies up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave.
Davis v. Davis deals with a couple from Knoxville, TN, Junior Lewis Davis and Mary Sue Davis (now Stowe), who eventually turned to in vitro fertilization (IVF) after having much difficult conceiving naturally. Five unsuccessful tubal pregnancies and six attempts of IVF implantations later, the couple allowed the facility to cryogenically preserve their last remaining ova in their final efforts. Their marriage ultimately came to an end, resulting in this dispute regarding the disposition of their “frozen embryos”. The couple was unable to come to an agreement from the very beginning to the end, with Mary Sue initially wanting the embryos with the intent to transfer to her own uterus and Junior wanting them to remain frozen until he decided to
In response to the increasing need for employees to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. Without a policy like FMLA in place, many employees often would have had to choose between “the job they need and the family they love” (Hayes). The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is the first national law created to help Americans balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of the family. It successfully helps bridge the gap between family and work and secures the right for both men and women to get unpaid leave and assistance when dealing with family related circumstances.
In 1984, there was a protest in the streets of Dallas; Gregory Lee Johnson was one of the many protesters there. During the protest Johnson set an American Flag on fire. There were some who agreed with what Johnson had done, but there were several others who felt extremely offended. This caused Johnson to go to court When Johnson went to court he was found guilty and was charged with "the desecration of a venerated object.”, and was sentence to a $2,000 fine, and one year in prison. Jonson should have not gone to court in the first place because what he had done was protected under the first amendment, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly.
While working as a security guard I was repeatedly harassed by a coworker. The harassment lead to a stressful work environment, and as a result I was placed on a medical leave of absence 4/19/2017- 5/15/2017. During my leave of absence, I was treated for stress related conditions. Part of my course of treatment included a heavy dose of medication. Following my medical leave, I was still receiving treatment and unable to return at that time. I then received a letter stating my employment had been terminated; however, now that my condition has improved I am able to return to