Under the discrimination statute, the minor nature of an actual or perceived injury is an affirmative defense, and the burden to establish this subjective belief or actual condition is on the employer.
Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.
State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Federalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federalism. Show all posts
Seventh Circuit: Electric Power Supply Associat v. Anthony Star
State nuclear power subsidy mechanism that requires emitting producers to purchase credits from nuclear producers at a price set by the market with a safety valve provision directly tied to the federal utility power auction mechanism is not preempted by the federal stature setting up the auction, since the state scheme doesn't price participants and non-participants in the federal auctions differently, and states have a right to regulate the utilities within their borders.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-13/C:17-2433:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218059:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-13/C:17-2433:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218059:S:0
Second Circuit: United States v. Le
Acquisition of biological toxin through the Internet and the mails is fundamentally different than the local use of a similarly proscribed substance, so a statute need not be construed to avoid offending the police power of the states.
Even within such a narrowing construction, acquisition of this substance would be within the plain proscription of the federal statute.
Law implementing international convention is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e893b2c5-2f54-4145-a8ca-90ff73122a40/1/doc/16-819_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e893b2c5-2f54-4145-a8ca-90ff73122a40/1/hilite/
Even within such a narrowing construction, acquisition of this substance would be within the plain proscription of the federal statute.
Law implementing international convention is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e893b2c5-2f54-4145-a8ca-90ff73122a40/1/doc/16-819_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e893b2c5-2f54-4145-a8ca-90ff73122a40/1/hilite/
Fourth Circuit: US v. Gaston Saunders
Administrative, Federalism, Vagueness
Law banning fishing except that regulated by Congressionally-instituted multistate compacts does not extend similar exceptions for fishing under plans drafted by multistate commissions not referenced by the Act.
Law is not vague for complexity.
US v. Gaston Saunders
Law banning fishing except that regulated by Congressionally-instituted multistate compacts does not extend similar exceptions for fishing under plans drafted by multistate commissions not referenced by the Act.
Law is not vague for complexity.
US v. Gaston Saunders
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)