Browsed by
Author: Monica

Companies and Cigarettes

Companies and Cigarettes

When Should a Company Be Allowed to Not Hire a Person Who Smokes Cigarettes?

There are two occasions that I think a company should be allowed to not hire a person who smokes cigarettes, and I think that that is when food and healthcare are involved.

I apologize if I offend anybody with what I am about to say. These are just my personal thoughts. You are more than welcome to disagree in the comment section below. That being said, I personally feel quite ill when I see someone taking a smoke break at a restaurant. I don’t like the smoke being anywhere near the restaurant. Furthermore, I start to get paranoid thinking about if they wash their hands or not. Granted, EVERYONE should wash their hands when they come back from a break.

I just think it about it extra hard when I see people smoking, because I don’t want their cigarette smoke anywhere near my food. I am weary about the smoke smell still being on the employee’s clothes. Cigarette smoke carries a very heavy, strong odor. I have no desire to have my food smell like smoke. I am pretty positive that I have seen multiple employees take their smoke breaks while they still have their aprons on. I find that to be rather disturbing, and I do not understand how it is allowed.

I am not saying that people who smoke cigarettes should not be allowed to work any time food is involved. I am just saying that I think that that is one of the times a company should be allowed to not hire someone for smoking cigarettes. Another time that I think a company should be allowed to not hire a person who smokes cigarettes, is when healthcare is involved. That is for obvious reasons.

For both of these situations, it is really up to the companies to have the proper protocols to handle their employees who smoke effectively. If they do that, then there should not be much of an issue with hiring them. What do you all think? Leave a comment down below!

The United States and International Law

The United States and International Law

The United States is the preeminent power on the international stage, possessing the world’s most powerful military and it’s most vibrant and diverse economy. Time and time again, American judicial precedent has been used by other nations and international organizations in the formulation of their own laws, and the U.S. has often played a heavy role in the crafting of international law.
Nonetheless, the U.S. is seldom – if ever – a signatory of agreements that bind it to so called “international laws”. How has this come to be, and what are the consequences of this for the American people?

Following the second world war, the U.S. was the dominant voice in international affairs, and took every advantage it could that came with such a position in formulating the post-war international order. As the United Nations came to be formed, and international treaties and laws began to proliferate, the U.S. more often than not took a leading role.

History nonetheless shows time and time again that the U.S. will not permit its interest to be sacrificed for the sake of international norms and laws. The most recent examples of this phenomenon are glaring; the U.S. recently pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, a non-binding treaty intending to reduce global carbon emissions. Before that, the U.S. famously invaded Iraq in 2003, though it lacked permission from the United Nations Security Council to do so.

image of US and international laws

The explanation for this phenomenon is entirely political; as the world’s dominant superpower, the U.S. cannot and will not allow itself to be cowed by international rules that don’t serve its interest. As a nation that is domestically governed by a strict set of institutions which relies heavily on law, this is a curious, if not altogether understandable position.

While the U.S. often refuses to sign treaties or enter partnerships which may later tie its hands, it is nonetheless a global force for good in terms of enforcing law and order. For instance, while the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court, if often complies, at least partially with its judgments and recommendations. American treaties and court decisions more often than not seek to align themselves with morally defend-able positions, and act as important role models the world over.
What are your thoughts on international law, and American adherence to it? Should the United States become a member of the International Criminal Court? Does it already do enough – or even too much – in the name of international law? Leave a comment down below!

A Legal Right to Work?

A Legal Right to Work?

As the uncertain future of automation looms over broad sectors of the American economy, people from all economic walks of life have been left pondering worrying questions. How will automation impact my industry? How will it change my day to day life? Will I lose my job to a robot? Above all else, one question remains pertinent; do Americans have a legal right to work?

Even the most ardent advocates of automation will concede that robots can’t truly replace everyone; there will always be a plethora of jobs capable of being done only by humans. Nonetheless, massive quantities of jobs in our economy, particularly in areas such as manufacturing, retail, and transportation, are vulnerable to automation. How, then, will the coming wave of robotic automation change our nation’s economic and legal landscapes?

Right-to-work laws already exist in many forms throughout the U.S., yet these laws focus primarily on unionization, rather than automation. No legislation nor precedent as of yet exist to determine whether an American has a right to a job over, say, a robot. Nor is any such thing realistically likely to come into effect.

Nonetheless, labor unions and independent workers alike will certainly take steps to insure their economic well-being against automation, particularly in the field of law.

Legal actors should prepare themselves for a future where they may be dragged into a civil or criminal case regarding automation. If a company automates a position, and the robot or programming later causes a severe error or crisis to unfold, how might a prosecutor go about trying their case?

Lawyers will most likely be largely unsuccessful should they try to argue that their client’s right to a job supersedes a company’s right to automate. Yet they may find themselves more successful bringing lawsuits against those same companies when an automated function of their business causes personal or economic injury to another. A shrewd legal actor may argue that tragedy could have been averted, should there have been a human overseeing a job.

These kinds of scenarios are not hypothetical; thousands of manufacturing, service, and transportation jobs are already undergoing massive change due to advances in automation and programming. Lawyers and legal actors may even find their own jobs jeopardized by the onslaught of technological advance; routine paperwork can be done effortlessly by computer programs in a fraction of the time it takes a human, and complicated text can be quickly analyzed and interpreted by machines.

As the tides of time turn forth greater and greater advances in robotics and programming, legal scholars will be forced to confront questions such as these. Wise judicial actors should get a head start on these issues today, rather than suffer them tomorrow.

How might automation impact your job? Do you think legal actors have reason to fear computers taking their jobs? Leave a comment down below!

Children’s Personal Injury Lawsuits

Children’s Personal Injury Lawsuits

Seeing your child get injured can be one of the most traumatic experiences for a parent. It’s natural in such cases to want to get justice for an injury caused by someone else’s behavior. But when you do so, remember that personal injury lawsuits for children are different from the same kinds of lawsuits for adults. Below are three ways that the law treats children differently when it comes to personal injury cases.

1. The Statute of Limitations

Statutes of limitations set time limits on when a person can file a lawsuit. But children normally can’t file a lawsuit at all, because they’re considered to be under a legal disability. Because of this, the law generally extends any applicable statutes of limitations until the children reach adulthood. For example, if a six-year-old is hit by a car in state with a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury, the statute of limitations would normally expire by the time the child turns eight. But because children can’t sue, the statute of limitations for that six-year-old actually won’t expire until he or she is 20—two years after becoming an adult.

2. Settlements

For the same reason that children can’t sue on their own, they also can’t make contracts on their own. In fact, if a child were a party to a contract, the child could simply cancel the contract at any time. A child’s inability to contract extends to settlement agreements. So, the law provides a special requirement for settling children’s legal claims. Once the claim is settled, the adults involved must ask a court to approve the settlement agreement. They will also have to provide evidence that the settlement is in the best interests of the child at a hearing. That hearing is sometimes known as a “friendly hearing,” because both sides agree on what the outcome should be. Once the court approves the settlement, it is legally binding on the child.

3. Money

Whatever compensation the child receives, whether at the end of a trial or through settlement, must be handled in a particular way. Once more, the child’s minority means that he or she will be treated differently than an adult would be. Whereas an adult can take the money received from a lawsuit and do whatever he or she wants, compensation to a child must be placed into a special account. That account might be one maintained by the court until the child turns 18, or it might be a special education account that will help pay for the child’s college. Different states have different rules for this, but the bottom line is that the court will ensure the child’s funds are protected.

These three ways in which the law treats children differently from adults in personal injury lawsuits are all designed to help protect children when they need it most. Of course, if your child is ever injured by someone else, you should consult a local, knowledgeable attorney to learn how these differences apply in your case.

What Are Bail Bonds Agents

What Are Bail Bonds Agents

handcuffed and in need of a bondsman

A bail bonds agent or bail bondsman is a person or company who pledges their money as bail for a defendant under the condition that the defendant will show up to court. A percentage of the bail is paid to the agent. In most cases, some kind of collateral is put in place. For instance, if the defendant does not show up to court, the bail bonds agent may seize their property as compensation. These people are super handy if you end up in jail and need help.

Although it’s a tough job, being a bail bondsman has several advantages. First, it pays well. Bond dealers can earn up to $50,000 to $80,000 per year. This is quite a tidy sum for their troubles. If you are self-employed, you get to set your own commission so you can earn even more than this.

Second, You can own your own business. Once you are licensed, you can be hired by a company or start your own business. Starting your own business is best once you have acquired some experience. Having your own business allows you to have flexible working hours and gain more profit.

Third, It is never boring. It simply never gets boring in this line of work. With constant interactions with court officials and sometimes having to track down clients who have run off, it is always interesting.

Well, if this seems appealing at all to you, continue to read to learn how you can become a bail bonds agent. The process of becoming a bail bondsman varies slightly from state to state, but the general process is as outlined below.

The first thing you need to do to become a licensed bail bondsman is to ensure your eligibility. There is a set of conditions that you must fulfill if you want to join this line of work. You must be 18 years and above, have a high school diploma or GED, have sufficient financial resources to meet all surety obligations and have the sponsorship of a surety company. Additionally, you must be willing to attend and complete a pre- licensing course and pass the state licensing exam. In most states, this exam contains 50 to 60 multiple-choice questions to be completed in an hour’s time. The exam usually costs around $40 to $100 and is administered by a variety of independent test providers.

woman in jail waiting for bond

Second, you will want to apply for a state license. In order to receive a state license, you will be required to submit an application that is only found in the state’s department of insurance website. Submit your state licensing exam score and provide a licensing fee in the form of a check, money order or credit card. You will also be required to provide documentation of surety company sponsorship and submit a bond for a state mandated amount. Your license will take 1 to 3 years to be in force.

Third, you can join or start a bail company. Most newcomers join an established company first to gain experience before starting their own. This way, they can learn the tricks of the trade before going out on their own. If you are looking from great information on how to get started from a reputable bail bonds company, click here. Whichever you choose is ultimately up to you. Good luck and let me know if you want some more information on this subject.

Assisted Suicide: My Thoughts

Assisted Suicide: My Thoughts

This is a very touchy subject – at least for me. I remember reading a few Supreme Court cases about assisted suicide, and I always had mixed emotions about it. I read that six states now permit assisted suicide (there are certain criteria that must be met in order to do so). I was quite surprised. I will share what I think about this topic, although, I am basing my thoughts off of an emotional stance as opposed to a legal stance.

When thinking about this topic, I tried to picture someone that I love and care about deeply wanting to undergo an assisted suicide. If he or she were in that much physical pain that him or her felt the need to have a doctor end his or her life, would I want the law to deprive him of her of that? Is that my place?

I guess it is not. I do not know what that person is going through internally and emotionally. Aren’t we given a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If we are given the right to life, are we not allowed to control that life? Are we not allowed to control whether we choose to suffer or not? I want to say yes. I want to say yes extremely bad. However, I do not.

It is not that I do not think that people have rights to their own lives. Of course, they do. I just do not think that they have a right to have a doctor kill them. In no way am I saying that they have a right to kill themselves or that they should. I am not saying that at all. To give the right for doctors to kill Americans is a scary thought to me. I think of where this could lead to. Limits are created for a reason. This limit needs to continue. I feel that this can open the door to a ton of accidental or unnecessary deaths, give a patient an option to automatically give up (even with restrictions included – but especially without), and give doctors power that I am not comfortable with them having.

What are your thoughts on assisted suicide? Leave a comment down below!

Breastfeeding in Public: Should it Be Allowed

Breastfeeding in Public: Should it Be Allowed

This has become a huge debate within the past year. I remember when I was a kid, I would see women breastfeed in public all the time. I have always had a high level of morality, but I never saw this as a bad thing. I don’t understand why it has become such a controversy lately. Regardless, I do feel like breast feeding should be allowed in public.

I have noticed a lot of men complain about this topic. As a woman, I will never understand how men can have such strong feelings about things their bodies will never go through. It is very hard to understand something that you have never experienced. I do not have any children yet, but when I do, I plan on breastfeeding. I am not completely educated on how it works, but I do know that it is something that is not as simple as putting a formula in a bottle. I am not saying that to belittle or put down women who use formula for their babies. The fact that you carried a life and are taking excellent care of that life is all I care about.

I said that to say, women who breast feed are trying to do something that they feel will benefit their kid in the long run. It is not an easy task. They try to pump and do what they can, but sometimes, they just have to do what is convenient for them. I wish people would consider that when they are judging them. If some moms are able to breastfeed in the comfort of their home 24/7, then that is good for them – but that is not the case for every mom. You do not know what every parent’s situation is.

A lot of people also complain about women who do not cover up their breasts as they breastfeed. Because I worry about the impact of children seeing that, I can understand that argument. That being said, breastfeeding is not meant to be a sexual act. It is a mother trying to feed her child. Maybe she did not have a cover-up at the moment, or maybe she just doesn’t care because all she is focused on is feeding her child. Regardless, she should not be kicked out for that. As another article that I read said, the baby pretty much covers everything. Furthermore, if it bothers a store that much, the employees should leave a visible sign that expresses that women who breastfeed must cover-up. Completely banning them from breastfeeding however, should not be allowed.

What are your thoughts on breastfeeding in public? Leave a comment down below!

Birth Control Without Parental Consent: My Thoughts

Birth Control Without Parental Consent: My Thoughts

This topic is very hard for me to give one solid answer on. I do not have a child yet. Perhaps my thoughts will change when I have one. I seriously doubt it, but you never know. That being said, instead of me giving one single opinion on whether minors should be given parental control without parental consent, I will just provide some random thoughts that I have.

Considering the fact that birth control is a prescribed drug, I definitely think that parents should be notified whenever their child has been given birth control, regardless of whether consent is required. If I had a child, I would want to know what was going into his or her body, whether I had the legal right to approve of it or not. You never know how someone’s body is going to respond to a particular medication. I think that being aware of what my child is taking is important, despite my personal views.

As far as providing consent is concerned, I can see why some parents would want to have to give their consent, but I could see the dangers of a minor being forced to have parental consent. Like I said, I think that parents should be notified, but I don’t think that minors should be denied birth control just because their parents do not think that they should be on it. There are multiple reasons why a parent may not want their child to be on birth control, and a lot of those reasons are personal to the parent; not the child. If the reason does not have to do with the child’s body having a negative adverse reaction to birth control, I am not sure what other reason a parent could have other than a moral reason. I understand that their morality may be important to them – mine is important to me. However, that is not a rational reason to stop a minor from getting birth control.

I don’t care about the minors right to privacy. If a minor is being fed, clothed, and taken care of by his or her parents, I think that parents have every right to invade their privacy – especially if the parent has made it abundantly clear that he or she does not want their child being sexually active while in his or her home. That being said, if a minor does decide to become sexually active, I think that she or he should have the right to protect his or her self, with the parents being made aware of what is going on. What do you guys think? Any thoughts, opinions? Leave a comment down below and share!

Forms of Discovery Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Forms of Discovery Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In civil lawsuits, long before a jury hears a single word about a case—indeed, long before any of the eventual jurors to hear a case knows they’ll need to report for jury duty—the lawyers and parties in the case are exchanging information. They do this through a formal process known as discovery. One party will request information from the other, the other will answer, and vice versa. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), there are four common forms of discovery requests and responses that are used in virtually every case: oral depositions, requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production. This post discusses each in turn.

Oral Depositions

Depositions are governed by FRCP 30-32. An oral deposition is like pretrial testimony. A party to the case or a witness that may be called at trial is placed under oath and questioned by the parties’ lawyers. The depositions will at least be transcribed by a court reporter, and may also be recorded on audio or filmed. During the deposition, a lawyer may object to any question, but since the judge isn’t present to give a ruling, the person giving the deposition will normally answer the question despite the objection. An attorney is not allowed to instruct his client not to answer a question except for limited purposes, such as preserving a privilege.

Requests for Admission

Requests for admission are authorized by FRCP 36. A request for admission is a request by one party that another party either admit or deny that something is true. If the party admits that the requested information is true, then the court will treat that as conclusively evidence that it is true. Importantly, if a party fails to respond to a request for admissions within 30 days, then the court will treat it as if the party admitted everything that was requested.

civil procedure tag cloud

Interrogatories

Like the name suggests, interrogatories are written questions from one party to another. They are governed by FRCP 33. In general, a party can only serve 25 interrogatories on another party. When the other party receives the interrogatories, the party has 30 days to answer. The answers must be made under oath, and every interrogatory must either be answered or objected to.

Requests for Production

FRCP 34 provides the rules for requests for production. A request for production is a written request by one party that another party produce any evidence or potential evidence requested. Requests for production tend to be very broad, because the party making the request wants to be sure that it is aware of everything that the opposing party has in its possession.

The purpose of the civil discovery system under the FRCP is to give all parties to a dispute access to all information of which the other party is aware. In modern practice, the surprise witness or unexpected evidence is rare, precisely because the FRCP allows such broad pretrial discovery. The four forms of discovery discussed in this post are part of that process, and enable each party to a case to develop the best possible case to later present to a jury at trial.

Top 10 Tips to Succeed in Law School

Top 10 Tips to Succeed in Law School

Here is a brief post I wanted to share with you about the top 10 tips to succeed in Law School. If you are currently in law school, or still finishing up your undergrad, it is never too early to start thinking about the future. If you are set on becoming an attorney, here are some great tips to get you started!

  1. Prepare for class. Preparing for class is the best way to understand the material and get the most out of your classes. Complete all assigned reading before each class. You should also create a brief outline of your reading before each class. If you fall behind, it will be extremely difficult to catch up.
  2. Attend class. You need to attend class to fully digest and understand the material. Your professor may also test on topics that were only covered during class.
  3. Focus in class. There’s no point in going to class if you’re not going to pay attention. The professors also tend to randomly ask students questions, so there is a good chance that you will get caught if you’re not paying attention.
  4. Ask your professor questions. If you don’t understand something, simply ask your professor a question. If you’re brave enough, you can ask your professor during class. If you’re more shy or nervous, just ask after class. Law professors tend to stick around after class to answer questions.
  5. Outline your coursework. Create an outline of the material and add to it after each class. You can use your outline to help you study for final exams later.
  6. Buy a reputable study guide. There many study guide books available for purchase. Ask your professor for a recommendation.
  7. Join a study group. Studying in a group that meets regularly will help keep you on track. Talking about the coursework with other students will also help ensure that you don’t misunderstand the material.
  8. Study hard. Study harder than you’ve ever studied before for final exams. The exams will cover a lot of material to cover. Start early and leave yourself plenty of time.
  9. Take practice examinations. One of the best ways to study is to take practice exams. Many professors will give you copies of their old practice exams if you ask. Your law school’s library may also have old practice exams on file.
  10. Minimize distractions around finals. Finally, minimize any distractions while studying for your final exams. You need to focus on the material if you want to succeed. Talk to your friends and family and ask for their understanding.

Pretty simple, right? Becoming a lawyer is not easy, but if you focus on the process and stay involved, it won’t be too difficult at all! If you have any more tips you would like to share, let me know.