Tenured Case Study

Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961

(Cornell Law, 1983)

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.

When Muller got fined and convicted, he appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court (Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2).After he appealed the case, the U.S. Supreme Court heard about it and decided to consider in (U.S.Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908). William D. Wenton, who was Curt’s lawyer, argued that what happened was violated the 14th amendment. Wenton had to write a very long document stating that the rule violated the amendment (U.S. Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908 (U.S. Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908). When he presented the documents to the court, he made some very strong and valid points. The points that he made led to the women’s jobs laws being regulated and improved.

As such I often look to them for guidance with certain things because there is a good likelihood that they have experienced what I may be dealing with. Additionally, workers who are tenured absolutely play a part in keeping organization running as they employees who shape the generation of worker who will undoubtedly succeed them. Furthermore, the issue of age discrimination in the workplace should be deterred one because it’s against the law and if a company is looking for more long term employees, increasing or implementing college recruitment programs may be a viable option for

Problems in Tenure Litigation The case Howard University v. Best, 547 A.2d 144 (D.C. Cir. 1988), is the second appeal arising out the employment contract of appellee Dr. Marie L. Best with appellant Howard University. In Howard University v. Best, 484 A2d 958,990 (D.C. 1884) (Best I), Dr. Best stated claims of indefinite tenure, sex discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of, not being awarded indefinite tenure but a late notice for a non-renewal of her contract ( Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. ,2013). In the trial, the verdict was in favor of Dr. Best, holding the University had breached its contract with her by failing to provide timely notice of non-renewal.

Government employers, the Court wrote, could restrict their employees ' speech in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the public. However, government employees had the right to speak on matters of public concern, such as on

Since this was not offered to him it was a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process (Findlaw, 2015). This case was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and they rendered a split decision 5 votes for Sindermann and 3 votes against. Justice Stewart wrote the majority opinion and stated “nonrenewal of a one year teaching contract may not be predicated on [a teacher’s] exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights”. The court further asserted that Sindermann’s disagreements could not be the basis of his termination because he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. In addition, the court found that even though the Board of Regents did not grant tenure,

Korematsu also pressed that this was an act of racial discrimination in that military leaders were displaying racist motivations against Japanese Americans, and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed him equal protection as an American-born citizen despite his cultural background. The Supreme Court rebutted his claims, stating that there was not enough time to conduct a trail or hearing for each Japanese American and the need to protect our nation against espionage outweighed Korematsu 's

The Supreme Court has been entrusted with the task of interpreting the Constitution of the United States. In the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech serves as the foundational liberty which is the cornerstone to the practice of democracy. Commencing at the early part of the twentieth century cases such as Schenck v. United States, Debs v. United States, Abrams v United States, Whitney v. California, and Dennis v. United States, paved the way for the Court to set the legal standard for defining protected and unprotected speech. Nonetheless, the Court has struggled to interpret said boundaries property and has failed to protect speech in some of the above cases. This essay will analyze two different scenarios where the Court

Georgia and other states protested this decision saying states had “Sovereign Immunity”. Sovereign Immunity says that states can do as they please and face no legal consequences. The court denied their claim saying Article three, section two allowed them to try the case. This only caused more protest about the Supreme Court having too much power.

The Second Amendment was intended for the maintenance of state militias, not the right of individuals. Michael Waldman, the President of the New York University School of Law, said that when the amendment was in progress, the US Supreme Court declined to rule for the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939. Waldman overall indicated that individual rights were not what was referred to in the Second Amendment for an extended period. According to Jeffrey Toobin, a news editor for a famous New York magazine company, the re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an “elaborately executed political operation,” in the government. This medium that although they amend the amendment every once in awhile, the intent will always remain the same.

Furthermore, it is the HR professionals duty to make sure the management team is fully aware on how to conduct business within the guidelines because in some cases knowingly or unknowingly laws can be broken and grave consequences will follow in suit. When we tie in the case of St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks legal risk management comes into play. I support the ideal that some risk management cannot be avoided by leadership and some risk taking may play a crucial role in the continuance of an organization. Although there are certain lines you should not cross and being able to cover your tracks are very important. In this case referenced, St. Mary's gave evidence as to how they made adverse employment decisions, but in the manner of doing so raised some red flags that enabled Hicks to have the opportunity for the case to eventually be heard in Supreme Court.

The two Supreme Court cases Korematsu v. United States 1944 and Schenck v. United States 1919 are similar in how they deal with people who stood up for their rights and dealt with Constitutional Amendments but differ in their time periods and the amendments they deal with. Both of the cases took place during times of war, Schenck during World War I and Korematsu during World War II. Charles Schenck did not believe in the Conscription Act so he urged people to protest it through words and papers and when he was brought to court the main case issue was if his actions were protected by the First Amendment. Much like Schenck, Fred Korematsu did not agree with the Japanese Exclusion Act and refused to be removed from his home. When he was brought

The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues.