:Forest Folk

It has the burden to prove that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age. Thirty of the 61 salaried employees the company laid off were at least 58 years old. In reaching its conclusion that the employer has the burden to prove the reasonable factors other than age defense the Supreme Court looked at another provision of the ADEA the bona fide occupational qualification defense. Knolls totaled those scores and gave the employees additional points based on their years of service. At the trial a jury found Knolls had violated the ADEA because its layoff procedure had a disparate impact based on age. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employer seeks to rely on that defense. The BFOQ defense states that it is not unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment actions otherwise prohibited by the ADEA where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. It then used those totals to decide who to lay off. In that case Meacham versus Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the ADEA that permits an employer to take an adverse employment action against an employee. The company had its supervisors rate their subordinates based on their performance flexibility and critical skills. A lawyer from Vlieland won from a advocate in Greenville South Carolina Specifically the jury found that although the plaintiffs did not prove that Knolls intentionally discriminated against them they did prove that Knolls method of deciding who to lay off disproportionately harmed older workers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially affirmed the jurys findings but after the United States Supreme Court asked it to reconsider the Second Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of Knolls. Twenty-eight of those 27 employees sued under the ADEA claiming Knolls illegally fired them because of their age. Even if the employment action is otherwise prohibited by the ADEA. For example it would not be illegal to consider criteria for a particular role in a movie that has a disparate impact on age if the part calls for someone of a particular age. As long as the adverse action is based on reasonable factors other than age. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the jurys finding that Knolls policy unlawfully discriminated because of age. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the employer has the burden to establish the BFOQ affirmative defense. In other words the ADEA permits employers to discriminate based on age considering age is legitimately necessary under the circumstances. In Meacham Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory was planning to lay off a number of employees.

Comments Off

A baby boy who is barley 12 months old was hurt when he came into contact with a hot drink cup at a Norfolk childcare facility, This is the same location where not long before a two year old had manage to wander out onto a busy road.

In this latest incident the bady had to be taken into hospital for treatment to deal with burns from the accident that occurred at the Cromer’s Sure Start children’s centre. As a direct result of this latest occurrence the owners felt they had to suspend two staff involved in the hot drink debacle.

County health and safety officials have visited the site and say they will be undertaking what they refer to as a “thorough review” of conditions at the centre. They will also be offering guidance to other similar establishments that are located on school grounds in the county.

The child is said to not be seriously injured and is recovering at home, but quite obviously two incidents within a short period will raise concerns among parents of little ones that make use of the centre.

It would perhaps have been wise in hindsight for the management to have undertaken a comprehensive health and safety training course such as the NEBOSH certificate course from Workplace Law Training.

Comments Off

Numerous people often wonder what the actual value of a paralegal degree is in today’s job market. With a Bachelor’s degree, you can expect to make up to sixty thousand dollars a year, working as a paralegal in a large city or for the federal government. This above average income is over half the income the average American makes.
The largest number of paralegals are employed by private law offices. That said, more insurance companies, corporations, banks, and real estate firms are beginning to employ paralegals as well. Choosing this career will allow you to pursue a large number of employment options.
Specialized paralegals who have focused their education on certain areas, like bankruptcy or product liability, will find that they have a plethora of jobs available to them.
The role of the paralegal continues to grow in the face of larger and ever more important tasks. Corporations want paralegals working in-house, creating a stable, long-term environment. They will not typically outsource their paralegal job opportunities to other nations.
As we’ve seen, the field of paralegals is most likely to expand into the private and public sector. Getting a Bachelor’s Degree online as a paralegal is well worth it; it is a great investment for the future. The field is expected to grow for the next decade, and more and more different types of businesses will need paralegals. This field is also somewhat insulated from outsourcing and minimally affected in a recession.

Comments Off

Rush is right! The government’s stepped up bid to regulate broadcast television content is indeed frightening. Limbaugh made his comments during one of his regular radio broadcasts last year. Those remarks were in response to the FCC’s crackdown on broadcast indecency and Congress’ threats to hand out much larger fines to broadcasters for such violations, in the wake of Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl halftime show last February.

Limbaugh is the not only media personality alarmed by this intensified government scrutiny of television content. At the beginning of his news program on CNN during that same time frame, Aaron Brown said he thought the only thing worse than Jackson’s Super Bowl debacle is the fact that the government is now getting involved in trying to prevent similar incidents in the future. Amen, Aaron!

Television, like any other business in a capitalistic society like ours, is and should be governed by the marketplace and the laws of supply and demand. I would love to see more family-friendly television programming. However, if there were truly a great demand for it, there would naturally be a lot more of it in existence (as well as a lot less of the offensive stuff). The folks who are pushing the hardest for greater government intervention to make TV more family-friendly will assert that they are in the majority of viewers and listeners in the U.S. However, the facts belie this assertion.

Of the seven broadcast networks, PAX, widely recognized as the most family-friendly, is last in the ratings. It’s not just last, it is dead last! PAX gets about one-fourth of the audience of the sixth place network! Even in places that don’t have a local PAX affiliate, it is usually available as a cable channel. However, it’s not even among the 30 top-rated cable channels. On the other hand, some of the TV shows and cable networks with the most controversial material get the highest ratings. Go figure.

In reality, those who are clamoring the loudest for TV to “clean up its act” know they are in the minority. Instead of tuning their TVs to PAX or one of the other tamer channels (as I do) or even turning their TVs completely off, they go running to the government to force their tastes on everyone else. Oddly enough, most of these people consider themselves conservatives. Funny, I thought conservatives disdained government intervention in favor of allowing the marketplace to take its course. Where did I ever get such a silly idea?

What these people seemingly don’t realize is that their efforts could very well backfire on them and all the rest of us. Broadcasters have generally submitted to the concepts of the V-chip and content ratings to help parents regulate their children’s TV viewing in their homes. After all, isn’t that what all of this hoopla is about? They have also meekly accepted reasonable fines from time to time for indecent broadcasts. However, the vocal minority is now demanding that the FCC and Congress play hardball, i.e., impose very large and numerous fines as well as revoking the licenses of stations found guilty of indecent broadcasts. In response to this demand, there are now bills circulating in both houses of Congress that would increase fines to the range of $250,000 to $3 million per violation along with threatening license revocation for habitual offenders.

Many people forget that the FCC and Congress are not the final arbiters of these matters. The courts are. In the past, the courts have vigorously defended the First Amendment and I believe they will continue this trend. By playing hardball, the FCC and Congress will leave broadcasters with no other option but to take them to court. Even though the courts have, in the past, upheld the FCC’s reasonable jurisdiction over broadcast TV, things could change if the government’s newly attempted heavy-handed penalties are challenged. Long ago, the courts stripped away the government’s “right” to regulate indecency on cable and satellite channels. If the government decides it really wants to play hardball with broadcasters, it could ultimately lose any jurisdiction over broadcast content as well.

But let’s suppose the government’s more restrictive regulations are upheld by the courts. That’s definitely a possibility. However, because of the greatly increase fines and the possibility of license revocation, the courts will likely force the FCC to be more specific and draw up more detailed indecency guidelines. They are currently vague, to say the least.

I’ll use the following illustration to demonstrate how vague the FCC’s current guidelines really are. Let’s suppose that none of the roads or highways we all drive on everyday had posted speed limits. Instead, let’s suppose they just had signs warning us not to drive too fast. Then let’s suppose that the police were allowed to subjectively write tickets whenever they thought someone was driving too fast, but would never actually define what they thought “too fast” really was. That’s similar to how the FCC operates. It doesn’t provide any specific guidelines and only investigates a claim of indecency when someone files a complaint. It never explicitly states what a broadcaster can and cannot do.

Now, going back to our speeding analogy, let’s suppose that we (along with the courts) tolerated this kind of speed enforcement because the fines were relatively small and no one’s license was ever revoked. However, what do you think would happen if the governing authority decided to greatly increase the fines for speeding and allow the possibility of license revocations for such violations, without giving us specific speed limits? We would not stand still for such a thing and neither would the courts. Posted speed limits would be mandated.

With the FCC forced to write more specific rules governing indecency, it could find itself in a very precarious position. If, for example, the FCC strictly forbids specific words from being used and/or specific body parts from being shown on broadcast TV, it will invite another court battle that it will probably lose. However, if it explicitly lists situations in which certain words can be used and/or certain body parts can be shown, broadcasters will begin to find loopholes in these rules and exploit them. We all know that the more specific a law or rule is, the easier it is to find loopholes in it.

The bottom line is that more aggressive enforcement of indecency regulations on broadcast TV and radio could backfire and actually lead to even racier content. Members of Congress would be advised to look before they leap.

About The Author

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

terrymitchell@verizon.net

Comments Off

Sen. Partick J. Leahy has introduced the Anti-Phishing Act
of 2005 to Congress for consideration. The Act would allow
federal prosecutors to seek fines of up to $250,000 and
prison sentences of up to five years against individuals
convicted for promoting phishing scams. Online parody and
political speech sites would be excluded from prosecution.

“Phishing” is an online scam used to deceive computer users
into giving up personal information such as social security
numbers and passwords. Phishing scams usually involve email
messages requesting the verification of personal information
from a familiar business. Readers are provided a link that
sends them to what appears to be the site of the company in
question. The reader is then asked to verify their account
information by providing their name, address, social
security number, account number, etc.

In truth, the site is an illegal copy of the business in
question and the reader’s information is collected for later
fraudulent use including identity theft. Consumers are
estimated to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year to
phishing scams. Undoubtedly, you have received more than a
few of these emails.

Phishing emails are most likely to use the sites of banks,
credit card companies, and large retailers. Online companies
such as Ebay, PayPal and Earthlink have had similar
problems. One particularly aggressive group even scammed the
site of the IRS.

In April 2004, the IRS warned consumers that scam artists
were sending emails purportedly from the IRS. Consumers
received emails claiming they were under investigation for
tax fraud and subject to prosecution. The emails contained
language telling recipients they could “help” the
investigation by providing “real” information and directed
them to a website that was derivative of the IRS site.
Consumers were then asked to provide detailed personal
information to dispute the charge. Since most people fear
the IRS, one can assume that a large number of people took
the phishing bait.

Commentary

The Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 is a nice start to combating
scam artists that use phishing to pilfer money from
consumers. The Act, however, will not put an end to
deceptive phishing practices if it is passed. There reason
involves jurisdictional issues.

A large percentage of the individuals promoting phishing
scams reside outside of the United States. While they may
take notice of the law, it will have no discernible effect
on their fraudulent scams. Until there is an international
response, phishing scams will continue to be a problem.
Nonetheless, Senator Leahy should be commended for
initiating efforts to deal with this growing problem.

Richard Chapo is the lead attorney for the law firm
http://www.SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - a firm providing
legal advice to California businesses. This article is for
general education purposes and does not address every facet
of the subject matter. Nothing in this article creates an
attorney-client relationship.

Comments Off

The Nurse Practice Act is a set of state laws that govern
specific aspects of the nursing profession. The statutes are
generally grouped with a chapter of state laws, referred to in
its entirety as the Nurse Practice Act “the Act”. The Act aims
to protect the public from an unsafe nurse by ensuring minimum
levels of performance.

Individual state legislatures’ determine the Acts content, so
“the Act” may differ a bit from state-to-state. Nonetheless,
many acts address common issues such as establishing the
composition and scope of authority for the board of nursing;
defining the practice of professional, practical or vocational
nursing and advanced practice nursing; setting the requirements
to obtain a nursing license; limiting use of the title, “nurse”
and listing the grounds for discipline against a nurse’s license.

And to encourage consistency across state lines, the National
Council of State Boards of Nursing developed a Model Nursing
Practice Act, available at HREF=http://www.ncsbn.org rel="nofollow">http://www.ncsbn.org.

Individual State Boards of Nursing can exercise a great deal
influence over the Act, although they don’t author “the Act”
because they are the administrative agency charged with
implementing and interpreting “the Act” within the scope of
authority granted to them by the legislature.

A nurse needs to be knowledgeable about their legal obligations
associated with “the Act”. In addition, “the Act” may allow a
licensed nurse to seek the boards’ written opinion regarding
“the Acts” interpretation, which the nurse may consider when
evaluating legal options.

On the other hand, not all laws governing the practice of
nursing are found in “the Act” or its’ regulations. Legal
obligations common to various licensed healthcare professionals
will apply to nurses, such as confidentiality requirements or
mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse but these
obligations are generally found outside “the Act”.

Most public libraries should have a copy of the state statute
books which should have a copy each individual states act.
However, be sure to get a copy of the most current version and
check for the latest amendments that may not be included in the
format you’re using. It also wouldn’t hurt every licensed nurse
to have a personal up-to-date copy of “the Act” available for
easy reference.

Regulations are generally published in a compilation known as
the administrative code. They should also be available from the
same sources. Some of the board’s written opinions may be public
record, so you may want to give the boards’ office a call to
determine if these documents exist and how to obtain them.

Being Licensed in Multiple States Most states require that a
nurse obtains a license to practice nursing by the state in
which they are practicing, with an obligation to abide by that
state’s laws and regulations, as the condition of accepting a
license in the state.

As a result, in most situations, the travel nurse is bound by
the Act of the state in which the deed under review occurred.
Nevertheless, if one state should discipline a nurse for an act
that occurred in its borders, the discipline itself (regardless
of the grounds) may serve as the basis for additional discipline
in each of the other states where the nurse is licensed.
Consequently, a nurse may be disciplined in multiple states
stemming from one incident.

Some states have entered into a Nurse Licensure Compact, which
permits a licensed nurse to practice nursing in other states
without obtaining a separate license. Visit the National Council
of State Boards of Nursing at the domain listed earlier for more
information.

The nurse must abide by the laws of the state where he or she is
practicing, so complaints about the travel nurse would be
processed by the state where the alleged violation occurred, but
would also be reported to the travel nurse’s home state.

Licensed nurses should be familiar with the Nurse Practice Act
of whatever state or states they hold a license. The maxim
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse” clearly applies in this
arena. Remember, nurses can be held accountable for compliance
with all laws governing their performance.

All nurses are strongly encouraged to obtain and review a copy
of the current act(s) governing their practice and to become
knowledgeable about the boards overseeing those acts.

This article may be reproduced only in its entirety.

Comments Off