The state of New York is famous around the world for being fast, diverse, and very open to opportunities that many are looking for. With the diversity of people living and working in the state of New York, it may be surprising that discrimination in the workplace still exists, and that there are still people who suffer from it despite the laws passed protecting them from such prejudice. According to federal law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating against their employees, mainly from race, gender, color, religion, ethnic identity, national origin, and many others. Employers are also liable if they fail to keep proper steps to prevent workplace harassment and discrimination.
Any company that has more than four employees is required to follow the NYC Human Rights Law. With the advent of gender equality, New York has also adapted laws that protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity according to both executive and administrative orders and personnel regulations. It is the company’s responsibility to discourage discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and hold worker’s liable for their offensive actions. According to the website of Cary Kane LLP, any misconduct that could eventually lead to a hostile work environment can leave employers vicariously accountable for their failure to address the issue. This could be very troublesome for employers, since employees who can present evidence of their employer not treating them unfairly through discrimination and that the harassment was more than “simple offenses” can be made liable for their actions or inaction.
Additionally, employers are likewise legally prohibited from retaliating against employees who have opposed what is considered unlawful discriminating practices, have filed a suit against the company, or have been involved in the process provided that there is good faith to believe that the actions and conduct of the employer was indeed illegal. Because of the complicated nature of employment laws and workplace discrimination, it is vital to seek help from a lawyer to ensure that your rights are upheld.
With the importance of physical beauty being a top priority in today’s society, men and women go to salons for services that might help enhance their looks. The spas or salons may seem like a very relaxing place that could boost their confidence, but they can still be exposed to dangerous machines and products that could eventually lead to injuries. Many victims of injuries in salons and spas often question whether they can file a personal injury suit against the management. Just as with any type of tort cases, proving the negligence of the spa or salon is the key in a personal injury suit.
Despite the various trainings and qualifications of people who work in salons and spas, accidents can still happen. The most common injuries from salons and spas are burn injuries (from waxes, heating tools, and chemical used in several treatments), lacerations (from scissors or blades), and neck and back injuries. There are other types on injuries, but in order to have a strong personal injury claim, the injury should be significant enough to prove negligence on the part of the employee or the business. However, the injury may have been caused by other factors, which is why you can have a number of defendants in your injury like the manufacturer of the products used, the employee or salon/spa who applied the product or used the machine, or maybe both.
Make sure to provide evidence of the injury; taking a photo and getting medical reports from your doctor can help in proving negligence and possibly a computation for the amount of compensation that will be awarded. Damages may be awarded for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and sometimes even for mental grief. Because each case is different, consulting with a local lawyer can help with your injury claim. Because such claims are not as common as other personal injury cases, it may be confusing for an injured customer to know how to proceed with the injury claim.
Impaired driving is the state of operating a motor vehicle while being affected by a number of things, such as: alcohol, drugs, medication, a medical condition, distractions, sleepiness, or a combination of any of them. In the United States alone, impaired driving accounts to half of motor vehicle accidents, and almost considered a deadly crime. Thousands of motorists are involved in often fatal motor vehicle accidents that are sadly preventable. According to the website of the Abel Law Firm, it is important not only for motorists to know the useful methods of fighting impaired driving in order to prevent serious injuries or even fatalities.
Driving under the influence of alcohol or legal/illegal drugs is one of the leading causes of motor vehicle accidents across the United States. Because of this, various states have already implemented laws and stiff penalties regarding DUI/DWI offenders. State laws often implement a number of methods to help prevent and lower cases of DUI/DWI, such as sobriety checkpoints, ignition interlocks, suspension of driver’s license, and many others. What makes it difficult to control DUI/DWI is that there is presently no national standard of measurement for the level of impairment which makes detection difficult for law enforcement officials.
Hiring an Oklahoma motor vehicle accident lawyer may be necessary if you have been involved in an accident is the state, since the laws can differ from each State. However, the preventive measures can apply to every motorist. Following the BAC (blood alcohol concentration) level of .08% and driving only when at legal age is one way to prevent disastrous road accidents. Keeping your focus on driving and avoiding distractions (eating or being on the phone) in another, along with following traffic rules can keep you in control of your vehicle and avoid accidents. Avoid driving when you are tired or sleepy, or under the influence of medication or if you are not feeling well. Safety measures such as these can greatly lower your chances of being in a motor vehicle accident.
Paying for student loans has been a big problem in the United States, and with interest rates for doubtful debts being 21% higher for vocational courses in comparison with higher education, it is no wonder why many worry about finding ways to pay back their debts or simply filing for bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy can only wipe out student loans in cases where the debtor can prove that the repayment of the student loan will cause “undue hardship” to him/her and their dependents. This can be very difficult thing to prove, which is why it is better to choose a repayment plan rather than filing for bankruptcy.
A new analysis done by the Grattan Institute states that over a third of government loans from students of vocational education and training will not be paid, with women who work as part-time employees being the majority of the non-paying FEE-HELP group. According to the report, the large volume of unpaid student debts is mainly due to the federal government’s failure to assess the suitability or a potential borrower. Furthermore, there are vocational courses that have worse repayment rates compared to others, possibly due to the lower opportunities of earning more than the required repayment threshold which is A$53,000.
The report, authored by Andrew Norton as a submission on the government’s probe into the providers of private vocational education and training, states that the repayment threshold should be lowered to A$50,000. There has been evidence of people manipulating their taxable income in order to be classified under the HELP threshold, and by lowering the repayment threshold will make the taxable income manipulation harder to do and would help reduce the percent of doubtful debt from 40 to 30 percent. As of the moment, there is already a provision being passed under the current legislation to end eligibility to certain education providers and courses.
After being approved by the Food and Drug Administration as treatment for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 1980, metoclopramide has been mass produced generically since 1985. Originally sold by Wyeth as Reglan in 1980, this compound has been tied to the development of tardive dyskinesia, a serious and often irreversible neurological disorder. People with this condition suffer from uncontrolled movements, generally on the lower part of the face. This severe side effect has already been issued on the original label, with further instructions to avoid the use of the drug no longer than 12 weeks. With the increasing number of patients who developed tardive dyskinesia after taking metoclopramide, in February of 2009 the FDA has issued a black box warning (the strongest type of warning) on the label to inform patients of their risks of tardive dyskinesia.
When additional warnings were given to the brand name Reglan, pharmaceutical companies who make generic metoclopramide are also required by federal laws to update their label warning. However, generic manufacturers have not adopted the recent updates on Reglan, and thus have put patients in danger of tardive dyskinesia. Many patients have already considered finding a Reglan lawyer to help them file an injury case against the manufacturers of the generic Reglan for their negligence on failing to warn consumers.
With the hundreds of lawsuits already filed in court, generic drug claims can now be considered following a petition for certiorari that was been filed in an appeals court in November of 2014. According to ruling given by the Iowa Supreme Court, Pliva Inc., a manufacturer of generic Reglan, can be held accountable for any injuries caused to their consumers after they have failed to provide updated warning labels to match their branded counterparts. The defendant, Pliva Inc., have already petitioned to overturn the decision, arguing that the federal law should legally preempt these type of state tort law claims made against manufacturers like them.
Through the years, the issue regarding generics manufacturers being held liable for injuries caused by their drugs due to “failure to warn” or neglecting to update their labels in accordance to their branded counterparts has been exhausted on courts throughout the United States. Presently, federal and state appellate courts are split in their views on the generic manufacturer’s argument on preemption.