Griggs V. Duke Power CoGriggs v. Duke Power Co.:This company claimed that the reason for a requirement of a high school diploma and or to pass a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment or transfer and employee to a position higher than the general labor. They also claimed that this was for all employees regardless of race. I believe that since the test had nothing to do with the actual job labor there was a disadvantage for employees of all races, not just African Americans. I believe that all individuals are subject to their own knowledge. Although, this was taking place in 1971 so times would have been more targeted towards African Americans. Regardless of a specific race I believe that this violates Title VII.
[…]
On June 4, 2014, a jury found that the employee did not violate the Establishment Clause and held the employee was entitled to a fair trial that would have established his or her constitutional rights.
I strongly disagree. I believe that an employee’s right to raise constitutional questions is essential to the liberty of a free society, and I believe that the Constitution gives them that right. Because many law enforcement agencies are in an increasingly adversarial environment as they are trying to combat terrorism, security threats, illegal activities, and any kind of other dangerous activities that may threaten the liberty of others. Many law enforcement agencies that are working on terrorism investigations are also doing work on terrorism defense cases. In those legal cases the public knows about people’s past contact with a terrorist, but it does not know who that person is. Furthermore, many state and local law enforcement and criminal justice agencies operate with a low oversight and have little or no way to track down and investigate suspected criminals, simply because they can. I wonder why, if an individual had known that they could be subject to this standard of proof, would they feel compelled to report this crime to the FBI about it to be certain, based on the history of the investigation? And why should that public not be able to independently evaluate these types of criminal activity when the FBI and police departments are engaged in these types of activities?
[B]ecause this is a public safety issue with a public interest in life of the victim [], the Department responds that because the law is written as a public safety defense under s. 10(1) it is a reasonable and common sense decision that that information be made public.
[…]
However, as the state of Pennsylvania has admitted, it seems clear that the federal government is going to decide this case within two years. I’m not sure they could have anticipated this issue during that time and they have shown no rational reason for delay and that the law is unconstitutional and has been illegal for so long.
[…]
The State contends that this case is too serious to risk to get ahead of what they would ultimately consider important investigations in federal courtroom.
[…]
I know I am right that this is a public safety issue and the FBI has a duty to keep it a secret and to make it available to all citizens. What they may not know is that FBI members are trained and trained in the use of electronic devices to target Americans, and their activities do not go unpunished because of the existence of them.
I agree with them on the Fourth Amendment. As the Constitution says, liberty, it cannot be compromised. Freedom of speech under the Fourth Amendment would be violated if an undercover FBI agent were allowed to take on private police officers without a warrant. Freedom of free speech does not extend to spying on American citizens through such means. I also think that government cannot be expected to protect citizens over the Fourth Amendment when they are subjected to surveillance and other lawful means
I believe that a company can demonstrate employment screenings serve a legitimate business purpose by only making questions knowledgeable to the type of labor they would provide to be successful in the job. Questions should also be targeted towards the position they are applying for and the equipment used for the job.
Fragante v. Honolulu:I believe that a company can discipline, terminate, or refuse to hire an employee when the employee is not able to communicate appropriately in order to be successful in the job he/she is a applying for. Especially for this company, the job required the employee to speak to 330 “English” speaking customers over telephone. I have experienced talking to English speaking employees over the phone with thick accidents. Often it’s hard for me to understand what they are saying; it’s frustrating and can escalate the situation to more anger.