Recommended: Grievance procedure at correctional institutions
The court also ordered the city to pay her attorney’s fees. The city appealed the ruling based on the grounds that they were not notified of the harassing behavior until after Williamson filed an internal complaint. Specifically, the city contended it could not be held liable for any knowledge the officer’s supervisor had regarding the sexual harassing conduct. The appellant court upheld the lower court’s
The City of Houston then filed a timely appeal stating that they did not receive timely notice of the alleged violation and that the liability of Bozeman should rest with Bozeman and not be imputed to the City as having been notified of the complaint allegations. 5. Main issue: Does notifying an immediate supervisor who is not considered “upper management” satisfy the requirement of notification to the agency that in turn creates a situation of vicarious liability to the agency if they do not act on the alleged complaint? 6. Court Deciding:
Thank you for your follow-up related to this Fast Appeal for Mrs. Letha Washington. You have been very instrumental in ensuring that Mrs. Washington got the necessary medical referrals while here in Houston, TX and we truly thank you for all you have done in that area. This letter is a direct rebuttal to your Grievance Resolution letter dated 2/5/16: 1. In your letter on page 2 you stated “ Per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines, Cigna-HealthSpring is required to mail a letter acknowledging receipt and processing of a Customer’s enrollment application.”
The 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith is about Smith and Black who were both members of a Native American Church and counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. They were both fired because they had taken peyote as a part of their religious ceremonies, at that time the possession of peyote was a crime under the State law. The counselors filed for unemployment in the state, but were denied by the Employment Division because the reason for their unemployment was work-related misconduct. Smith and Black argued, stating that under the First Amendment the government is forbidden from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion in this case the free exercise of peyote. Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, saying that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to as it was a part of their religion.
Grievance Summary: Inmate Zubko, You are grieving that an officer did not pick up your inmate request form for a legal call. You also state that your hour out hasn’t fallen between the hours of 0800 and 1700 hours, so you can’t contact your legal counsel or the Russian consulate. Your resolution is to receive a legal call and to speak to a Lieutenant about this matter. Response: Mr. Zubko, there has been several days from the beginning of November to the 16th that you have had dayroom access during the hours of 0800 to 1700 hours. The Dates are 11/3, 11/7, 11/8, 11/11, and 11/15.
Notice of Appeal for Slye Karguy’s case: (Sources – Sample Notice of Appeal & Statsky, pg. 298 & Week 3, Appellate Brief Assignment) United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia State of Georgia, Plaintiff, v. File Number 00-0001 Slye Karguy, Defendant, NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the State of Georgia, Plaintiff, in the above named case hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th
The Top Five Canada (Justice) v. Khadr Do you think the charter should always apply to the activities of the Canadian government officials exercising functions outside Canada? I concur with the Federal court's findings in that, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were created to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens in Canada. Outside of Canada, citizens are protected by international laws between sovereign states. Therefore, crimes committed in other judicial sanctions should be dealt with by their own court of law, without interference of other countries sovereignty. The case of R. v. Cook is an exception; Canadian authorities interrogated Cook, a Canadian citizen, outside of Canada.
Smith, Petitioner V. Thompson, Respondent Case Number: OH 5647-32 Facts: This appeal arises out of a post-judgment ruling by the trial court on the issue of whether Mr. John Smith stole Ms. Agnes Thompson’s mail in order to commit identity fraud. The facts which give rise to this matter are as follows: Agnes Thompson, 74 year old, accused John Smith of stealing her mail and opening several accounts using her personal information and social security number. Mr. Smith allegedly stole Ms. Thompson’s mail in order to commit identity fraud; subsequently, the police arrested Mr. Smith was arrested in June of 2015. Later, the Federal District Court in Toledo tried Mr. Smith in August of 2015.
None of the following were ever contacted by Appellant’s trial counsel. Had they been, they would have been willing to provide the following information. Mark Bowden provided the undersigned with an affidavit setting forth the following. See Exhibit 4. Bowden was with Appellant the night before and the morning of his September 1982 arrest for kidnapping and other charges.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No.14-981. Transcript of Gregory G. Garre Esq’s oral argument on behalf of the Respondent. Pg.51, lines 10-13, & Pg.55, lines 7-9: Back in 2002, from a class of 8,000, there were only 272 black students enrolled; 90% of the time, it is typical for a normal size classroom of to have zero to one African American student. Id. General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. agrees that in the event of two applicants’ criteria are exact alike, their race factors does “not necessary” matter in the admission office’s decision making. “The increasingly fierce competition for the decreasing number of seats available for Texas students outside the top 10% rule results in minority students being under-represented, and
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
I am writing this letter on behalf of the case regarding Shaun Ewing. Court date is sceduled for February 10, 2017 in court room 7. I was the complainant and victim in the matter and would like to respectfully request dismissal of the charges against him in this matter. The reason for my request is that at the time I was upset and emotional and I was not thinking rationally about the situation. Since the time of the incident I have had the opportunity to reflect upon the matter and I now realize that people make mistakes and say and do things they wouldn't normally do when they are upset.
Further, the evidence shows that Complainant accepted the Battalion Chief/EMT position in the Fire Prevention Bureau knowing that he was not required to respond to emergencies unless ordered to do
FACTS In 1972, racial tension was on the rise in Jackson, Mississippi. The local schools were affected, and the board of Education had to consider a plan to layoff teachers. This would mean cutting teaching positions, which had to be discussed with the Jackson Education Association (Union). There would have to be a meeting between the Jackson Board of Education and the Jackson Education Association (Union).
The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered, the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge. The applicant states, in effect, she wishes for her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to accurately reflect her character of military service.