Supporters of Judge Rossana Fernandez’s bid to remain on the Cook County Circuit Court bench have launched a campaign website. That’s a link to the site in the preceding sentence; a link has also been added to the blog Sidebar. The Illinois Supreme Court appointed Judge Fernandez to the countywide Elrod vacancy earlier this year. Fernandez’s website notes that she is the daughter of immigrant parents for Uruguay and Guatemala. Before establishing her own firm, Fernandez became the “first Latina Partner” at the law firm of Sanchez & Daniels (in 2007) (Manuel “Manny” Sanchez is co-chairing her campaign). Judge Fernandez graduated from Chicago Kent IIT College of Law in 1996. She earned her bachelor’s degree from the University of Illinois (in English literature and history). She is a graduate of Chicago’s Lane Technical High School. Growing up in Chicago, according to her campaign website, Fernandez was a member of the Erie Neighborhood House Drill Team. She later volunteered there and served as a mentor where she later volunteered and served as a mentor. Fernandez continues to serve as a volunteer with Chicago Cares, “assisting with customized service projects that benefit the Chicago community, particularly the Chicago Public School System,” according to her campaign website.
On August 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Poole v. Orange County Fire Authority. It is well established that employers must provide firefighters and public safety officers an opportunity to review and respond to negative comments entered into files used for personnel purposes. In addition, in County of Riverside, the county was required to disclose to a police officer adverse comments in a file containing the results of a background investigation the county used to determine whether to continue to employ the officer. And in Aguilar, the appellate court held an officer was entitled to review and respond to an uninvestigated citizen’s complaint placed in a confidential investigative file. The Court distinguished this case from other cases interpreting similar statutes on the basis that the supervisor’s notes were not available to anyone making personnel decisions in the future. Based on a unique set of circumstances, this case clarified FFBOR protections are not triggered by a supervisor’s private notes that were not used for any personnel action.
Examine your belief systems and see which candidate’s views most closely match yours. This can encompass many different areas, such as right to life, firearms rights, or border security. Vote for that candidate. Consider the Supreme Court. The contentious atmosphere surrounding the appointment and confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh revealed the true nature of the Democratic Party’s leadership. The Democrats, with one exception (Manchin of WV), voted the party line, against Justice Kavanaugh. On major issues, Democrats by and large vote the party line in Washington. The Democratic Party is, without a doubt, the PARTY OF GUN CONTROL! You can research this yourself, or you can check out my friend John Richardson’s compilation of state Democratic Party platforms HERE. Bredesen, as governor, vetoed Restaurant Carry in 2009, as I noted in an update in 2010. With Mike Bloomberg hosting a fundraiser for him, is there any reason to believe that he is no longer a gun banner? These mid-term Senate races, like the Presidential race two years ago, are really about the Supreme Court. Do you want to see President Trump appoint and have confirmed justices who will follow the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution; or risk having a Democratic controlled Senate stalemate his appointments until after the next Presidential election?
The parents say Article XI of the New York Constitution, dubbed the “education article,” ensures a public education to all students, but the New York State Education Department and Board of Regents are not doing enough to protect that right. Albany County Supreme Court. Lead plaintiff David Curry, who has two children in East Ramapo schools, wants the court to order the Education Department and Board of Regents – which oversee K-12 and university-level education in the state – to take action. The East Ramapo district, located about 45 minutes northwest of New York City, has 33,000 students, but only 9,000 of them attend its schools, according to the complaint. The other 24,000 attend private school, nearly all of them in yeshivas, or Orthodox Jewish schools. Several Hasidic villages and hamlets are within the district’s borders. The public school population is 91 percent African-American, Latino and Haitian, reflecting the diversity of the surrounding communities. The parents’ lawsuit points to the village of Spring Valley, where the district’s two high schools are located, whose residents comprise 100 different nationalities. 66 percent of them speak a language other than English at home, the complaint states. Among the district’s students, 83 percent are economically disadvantaged and 20 percent have disabilities. In addition, 27 percent are classified as “English language learners,” meaning they cannot communicate fluently or learn effectively in English, according to data footnoted in the complaint.
Ross, the Supreme Court paraphrases the remarks of William Pitt the Elder (pictured), the first Earl of Chatham, a.k.a. Mr. Waller, a convicted felon, was booted out of a temporary residence after a series of disputes with another occupant. These disputes culminated in a warrant for Waller’s arrest. With the permission of Riley Howard, a friend, and Jacqueline Frazier, Howard’s live-in girlfriend, Waller began storing a brown luggage bag, several garbage bags of clothing, and some food at Howard’s one-bedroom apartment. After officers arrested Waller on the warrant as he was coming out of Howard’s apartment building, and thereafter detained him in a police car, they sought and received Howard’s verbal and written consent to search the premises. Ms. Frazier and another woman were also present at the time of the search. One officer located a brown luggage bag in the bedroom closet. The bag was closed, but not locked or otherwise secured.
Without asking any questions, the officer opened the bag and discovered two firearms. Those occupants present denied ownership of both the bag and the weapons. All eyes turned to Mr. Waller, who, conveniently, was still sitting handcuffed in the back of a police car. The district court denied Mr. Waller’s motion to suppress, holding that he did not have standing to contest the search, and rejecting the argument that Howard’s consent failed to authorize a search of Waller’s bag. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court first found that Waller had an actual and reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag. The fact that there was no evidence that Waller had either informed the other occupants of the contents of the bag or given them the authority to look inside it indicated an actual expectation of privacy. Buttressing this conclusion, the bag was zipped, closed, and stored in the bedroom closet of the apartment.
The Court also emphasized that the expectation of privacy is intensified, rather than diminished, when an individual’s effects are temporarily stored on the premises of another. See also 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure Sec. 8.5(d), at 231 (4th Ed. Under these circumstances, Waller’s expectation that his bag would not be subject to “invasive exploration by government officials” was reasonable. With regard to the issues surrounding authority, the Government bears the burden of establishing the effectiveness of a third party’s consent. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. United States v. Jenkins, 92 F.3d 430, 436 (6th Cir. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 188. Here, the Court emphasized that officers have a “duty to inquire in ambiguous situations.” See also United States v. Salinas-Cano, 959 F.2d 861, 862, 865-866 (10th Cir. Whenever there is uncertainty regarding authority and control over a container to be searched, officers must ask questions and seek answers. Ignorance is no excuse. In this case, prior to the search, Howard told officers that Waller had some personal items in the apartment. There were also two women present in the apartment at the time of the search. So when the officer came upon the piece of luggage, he knew or should have known that either the defendant, Ms. Frazier, or the other non-consenting occupant could have had a protected privacy interest in the bag. As a result, the officer “should have sought the other occupants’ consent.” This he did not do. The officer’s “deliberate ignorance of conclusive ownership,” particularly when actual ownership could have been easily confirmed, quashed any notion that the officer had “apparent authority” to conduct the warrantless search. After myself litigating this issue unsuccessfully in Illinois state courts, U.S.
The Origins of Labor Conflicts in the History of U.S. The phrase “labor conflict” in US history relates to a period in time when this country was a highly industrialized nation. Conflicts between labor and management were prevalent, because the implorations for a fair wage system were deliberately ignored, while the workplace generally had an uncaring atmosphere. During that era, conflicts were real and often; they culminated in bloody confrontations and produced stories of strife and tragedy. However, the objective of this article is not to go over those times but to make a brief study of the ten most common examples of conflicts between labor and management. How those issues were addressed by the federal government through the US Department of Labor has been highlighted in the following sections. Labor unions were formed during the 1800s, but they were seen as mere troublemakers by employers. The courts of law often sided with the latter, as they declared labor unions unlawful and the workers guilty of criminal conspiracy. It is important to note that during those times, state laws prevailed, and the courts decided whether such laws were legal and enforceable.
Although dissenting opinions slowly surfaced in state legislatures, more than a century passed and workers were still literally fighting for their rights to fair labor practices. Courts still decided whether the law passed by the state should be upheld or not. It was only in 1932 that labor unions won the support of the Supreme Court when the latter abolished the laws against union membership. Yet the succeeding years were still marred by more violence and disruptions; hence labor unions remained active in fighting for workers’ rights. Finally, in 1935, the US Federal labor laws were passed and were called the National Labor Relations Act, which embodied the rights of the employees to fair labor. After two years, the said laws were ratified by the Supreme Court. By the middle of the 19th century, more states began to recognize the rights of workers to form labor organizations or unions. As changes in governance throughout the years took place during the 19th century, Congress passed more laws that recognized the employees’ rights to fair labor. Years passed and employees saw more edicts enacted in response to their grievances.
Today, reports on labor union statistics reveal that only 12.5 percent of the workers remain active as union members; 40 percent belong to the public sector and only 10 percent are employees of private sectors. The US Department of Labor became more active in seeking solutions to the continuing conflicts between labor and management. Although labor unions were recognized, employees’ rights to fair labor and compensation were not. Child labor was prevalent; women and children were overworked and underpaid. This also included the mandate which banned child labor. In addition, the Department of Labor was empowered to raise the minimum wage standards in certain industries, for as long as a committee held public hearings between employers and labor leaders. 0.25 per hour-after going through twenty-two wage hikes in between. Although there are some US states that recognize higher pay standards, this is deemed necessary in order to meet the elevated costs of basic necessities as a result of increasing statutory tax rates. Please turn to page 2 for more on Conflicts Between Labor and Management.
To address the workers’ issues against rendering hours of work beyond what was reasonable, the FLSA of 1938 initially established that workers should not work for more than 44 hours in a week. This was amended by the Contract Work Hours Standards Act of 1962 to 40 hours per week. Hours worked in excess of these provisions shall entitle the employee to the payment of salaries based on overtime pay. Overtime pay was established as an incentive for employees to work beyond the maximum hours in a week and during holidays. The overtime rate stipulated by law was expressed as equivalent to “an hour and a half” of regular hours worked. However, overtime pay is extended only to certain workers, which are generally those who work for manufacturing industries dealing in interstate commerce. Women workers raised issues about the inequality in pay rate computation based on gender. There was a general perception that women do not perform work in the same capacity as men do, for being weaker in strength and form. In addition, their role in the family was only secondary to the men, which denoted lower rank in status.
In fact, early American culture considered wives and children as part of a man’s personal possessions. This was likewise a cause of conflict between labor and management since it meant additional increase in overhead costs. However, the 1963 Equal Pay Act gave women the right to receive pay rates according to minimum wage standards, while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 totally prohibited any discrimination or bias against women. Labor unions started to broaden their agenda by broaching issues pertaining to the health and safety of the employees in their workplaces. Industrial accidents took place resulting in death and injuries that left the families virtually helpless and impoverished by the loss of the family breadwinner. Although state laws imposed regulations for safety, no laws addressed the fate of the worker and his family should the former fall ill, or become incapacitated or killed due to workplace accidents. New York was the only state that recognized the importance of addressing this issue as early as 1910, even before the institution of the National Labor Relations Act.
The state was the first to institute a law which forced companies to pay some form of restitution to the worker or his family in cases of workplace accidents. As a recognized representative of the workforce, union leaders brought the health and safety issues to their respective management’s attention. Some employers paid heed and cooperated while others did not. It was only later that such employers were forced to give in to the labor union’s demand, when Congress passed the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974, which included the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency. The changes in the structure in American families gave rise to issues about the entitlement of paid sick leave. Workers who needed to stay home to recuperate from a debilitating illness sought assurance that the job they left vacant remained available to him or her. In some cases a father was constrained to take time off to attend to his spouse and assist in the arrival of their child.
Some companies are generous enough to offer paid vacation and sick leave benefits, in order to entice top-caliber employees into working for them. However, not all companies can afford to provide their workers the same benefits. Their contention is that the prolonged absence of a worker does not bring any benefit to the company but instead affects its operations negatively. Based on the “at will” concept of employment, employers have a right to replace workers who cannot report for work for an unreasonable period of time. Hence, labor and management were at odds in coming up with a suitable solution for this issue. To date, this is still a source of conflict between labor and management as exemplified in the service units of public sectors like the police force and fire departments. In view of this, the federal government enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). To learn more about FMLA, readers can find additional information in other Bright Hub articles entitled “Employment Rights & Sick Leave” and Explaining the Key Employee Provision of FMLA.
Please turn to Page 3 for more examples of conflict between labor and management. The “at will” concept in employer-employee relationships was often used by employers as a liberal excuse to discriminate against older workers. This was prevalent at the time when businesses where faced with the rising need for fast-paced productivity. In addition, older employees also entailed bargains for retirement benefits; hence employers discriminated against age even at the onset, by setting age limits for job postings. This was a common conflict that was resolved only upon the enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which expressly prohibited employers from discriminating against older employees. However, there are certain qualifications to this rule that require a deeper understanding of the protection provided to the employee. For a comprehensive report about this law, read this separate article with the title “Examples of Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination”. Migrant workers are often placed at a disadvantage in the workplace because some of them entered the US as illegal aliens.