Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data. The legislation provides for binding arbitration. However, if the registrants fail to agree on compensation, the arbitrator's decision is subject to judicial review only for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct." The manufacturing firms engaged in the development and marketing of chemicals used in pesticides, appealed the EPA decisions and began proceedings in Federal District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the arbitration provisions. They argued EPA violated Article III of the Constitution by allocating to arbitrators the functions of judicial officers and by limiting
Memorandum To: John Doe: CEO CC: Legal Department From: Elementary Division Manager Date: [ 4/27/2014 ] Re: EMPLOYEE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CASE Issue: We have received notice from the company attorney stating the plaintiff, a former employee, has filed a case against the company, The Toy Box, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on the grounds of constructive discharge based on conflicting scheduling between work and religion. Despite the plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily remove himself from the company, The Toy Box could be found legally responsible for all lost wages to the plaintiff. The company may also be legally liable to compensate for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering as
So what is a whistle blower? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a whistleblower is an employee who turns against their superiors to bring a[n] problem out in the open. BusinessDictionary.com states that a whistle blower is a person who discloses improper or criminal activity within an organization. Finally, under Sarbanes Oxley, “A “whistleblower” is someone, usually an employee, who reports an employer who has broken the law to an outside agency.” Under this very important act, whistleblowers are protected by federal and state laws. Employers may not retaliate against them for reporting misconduct.
8. DOCUMENTATION: Each party is ordered to execute and deliver to the other party such documents as will be necessary to transfer all of the interest of the party not receiving the property to the party who shall receive the particular property under this Decree. In the event that any party fails to execute and deliver such documents within thirty (30) days of this Decree, this Decree shall have the effect of a conveyance and/or release under NEB. REV. STAT.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board WILLIAMSPORT AREA SUPPORT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT : : : : : Case No. PERA-C-09-219-E PROPOSED DECISION AND ORDER On June 16, 2009, the Williamsport Area Support Personnel Association (Association) filed with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) a charge of unfair practices alleging that the Williamsport Area School District (District) violated sections 1201(a)(5) and (9) of the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA) when it subcontracted its transportation services.1 On June 29, 2009, the Secretary of the Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing directing that a hearing be held on October 22, 2009, if conciliation
Sarbanes-Oxley Act is designed to make all personnel accountable for their action or inactions. For example, external, internal, and foreign attorneys are required to report violations to CEO/CFOs. If the officer(s) do not respond to the evidence provided by the attorney(s), they are obligated to report the evidence to the audit committee or another committee of the board. The act also provides protection to whistle blowers under Title VIII: Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (American Institute of CPAs,
Under ASC 420-10-25-12, a liability for costs to terminate a contract should be recognized when the entity terminates the contract in accordance with the contract terms. For example, a liability exists when an entity gives written notice to counterparty within the notification period or has otherwise negotiated a termination with the counterparty. We have already negotiated termination with the counterparty on the date of press release, and therefore, will have to account for the termination of the lease fee as of December 31, 2011. Upon terminating the lease, we will still incur costs until the cease-use date is arrived on January 31, 2012. The cease-use date is defined as the date an entity ceases the right to use
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, more commonly known as Superfund, was signed into law on December 11, 1980. It is designed to clean up the most polluted, complex, uncontrolled or abandoned sites contaminated by hazardous waste. It authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to find who contaminated these sites and compel them to clean them up. If a responsible party cannot be found the EPA is authorized to clean up the site on it’s own utilizing funds from a specially set up trust. Celebrating it’s 30 years in operation the “Superfund” has completed construction of clean up remedies on 67.5% of sites on the National Priorities List.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Michael Heindl, Attorney From: Jane Doe Date: May 7, 2009 Case: Mad Dog Review v. Jonesville City Council Office File No. : HCC-05-2009 Docket No: HCC-2008-2009 Re: First Amendment; Freedom of Expression Statement of Assignment You have asked me to prepare a legal office memorandum on the question of whether our client Mad Dog Review’s First Amendment Freedom of Expression rights were violated when they were violated when they were banned from performing in the city of Jonesville. Table of Contents Page I. Issue 2 II. Brief Answer 2 III.
Unfortunately, Mr. Pickering was removed from his teaching position but he did not stop fighting for his case. (Secunda 2010) The appellant, Marvin Pickering, then requested the review of the Board's action in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois, which declared his dismissal on the grounds that his letter was detrimental to the interests of the school system. Fortunately while on appeal the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the judgment. He was then able to requested review in the US Supreme Court and the high court granted certiorari. The US Supreme Court ruled eight votes for Pickering and one vote against.