Cassie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
absolutesnark) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2006-02-07 04:46 pm
absolutesnark) wrote in fandomhigh2006-02-07 04:46 pm
Entry tags:
Business Classes - 2/7
Business Law – First Period [2/7]
"You may have heard on the radio that Ms. Gilmore-Danes has a doctor's appointment today. I'm sure it's just a routine check-up and that everything is fine." It is clear, though, that Piper is somewhat concerned.
"Anyway, that means you're, once again, stuck with me. Last Thursday we learned about four different types of court systems in the US. Today we're going to learn more about the Federal Courts."
The federal courts are a branch of the federal government, and include:
General jurisdiction courts:
United States district courts
United States court of appeals (except the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
Supreme Court of the United States
Subject-matter jurisdiction courts:
United States bankruptcy courts
United States Tax Court
United States Court of International Trade
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
While federal courts are generally created by the U.S. Congress under the constitutional power described in Article III, many of the specialized courts are created under the authority granted in Article I.
Greater power is vested in Article III courts because the greater control that Congress is able to exercise over Article I courts would threaten the balance of power between the branches of government.
Article III requires the establishment of a Supreme Court, and permits the U.S. Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. In theory, Congress could eliminate the entire federal judiciary except for a single Supreme Court Justice (who would be the Chief Justice by default). However, the first Congress immediately established a system of lower federal courts through the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Levels of U.S. Federal Courts
The Federal District Courts are the general federal trial courts, although in many cases Congress has passed statutes which divert original jurisdiction to the above-mentioned specialized courts or to administrative law judges (ALJs). In such cases, the federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such lower bodies.
The Federal Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate courts. They operate under a system of mandatory review which means they must hear all appeals from the lower courts.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court is the court of last resort. It generally operates under discretionary review, meaning that it can pick and choose cases (through grants of writ of certiorari) and hear only the non-frivolous appeals that present truly novel issues. In a few unusual situations (like lawsuits between state governments) it sits as a court of original jurisdiction and must hear the case.
The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for providing protection for the federal judiciary and transporting federal prisoners.
Limitations on U.S. Federal Courts
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as placing some additional restrictions on the federal courts. For example, the doctrines of mootness, ripeness and standing prohibit district courts from issuing advisory opinions. Other doctrines, such as the abstention doctrines and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine limit the power of lower federal courts to disturb rulings made by state courts.
[lecture from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts]
Discussion Question: Do you think the federal courts have too much influence or not enough?
Homework: 100 words on the general jurisdiction court of your choice (c&p okay, but must actually do it to count)
***
HR Management – Sixth Period [2/7]
"If you listen to the radio at all, then you know Ms. Gilmore-Danes has a doctor's appointment today. I'm sure everything is fine."
Piper paused a moment before continuing.
"Last week we talked about why people do background checks. Today we're going to learn what kind of things can turn up on them and the problems they can cause."
Possible Information Included
The amount of information included on a background check depends to a large degree on the sensitivity of the reason for which it is conducted—e.g., somebody seeking employment at a minimum wage job would be subject to far fewer background check requirements then somebody applying to work for the FBI.
Criminal and incarceration records.
Litigation records. Employers are always terrified of employees who routinely file discrimination lawsuits even if a firing was clearly for cause. Also, in the U.S., employers that do work for the government do not like to hire whistleblowers who have a history of filing qui tam suits.
Driving and vehicle records. Employers in the transportation sector keep insurance premiums down by hiring those with a clean driving record--eg, those without a history of accidents or traffic tickets.
Drug tests are used for a variety of reasons--corporate ethics, measuring potential employee performance, and keeping workers' compensation premiums down.
Education records. These are used primarily to see if the potential employee had in fact received a college degree. There are reports of SAT scores being requested by employers as well.
Employment records. These usually range from simple verbal confirmations of past employment and timeframe to deeper, such as discussions about performance, activities and accomplishments, and relations with others.
Financial information: Individuals with poor credit scores, liens, civil judgments, or those who have filed for bankruptcy may be at an additional risk of stealing from the company.
Licensing records. A government authority that has some oversight over professional conduct of its licensees will also maintain records regarding the licensee, such as personal information, education, complaints, investigations, and disciplinary actions.
Military records. Although not as common today as it was in the past fifty years, employers frequently requested the specifics of one's military discharge.
Social Security Number (or equivalent outside the US). A fraudulent SSN may be indicative of identity theft, insufficient citizenship, or concealment of a "past life".
Other interpersonal interviews. Employers will usually wish to speak with potential employees' references to gauge employability. More intensive background checks can involve interviews with anybody that knew or previously knew the applicant--such as teachers, friends, coworkers, and family members.
Controversies
Drug tests and credit checks for employment are highly controversial practices. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: "While some people are not concerned about background investigations, others are uncomfortable with the idea of an investigator poking around in their personal history. In-depth background checks could unearth information that is irrelevant, taken out of context, or just plain wrong. A further concern is that the report might include information that is illegal to use for hiring purposes or which comes from questionable sources."
In May 2002, allegedly improper post-hire background checks conducted by Northwest Airlines were the subject of a civil lawsuit between Northwest and 10,000 of their mechanics.
In the case of an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, background checks can continue including the arrest record for up to seven years, per § 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:
Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing . . . Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
Subsection (b) provides for an exception if the report is in connection with "the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more".
Some proposals for decreasing potential harm to innocent applicants include:
Furnishing the applicant with a copy of the report before it is given to the employer, so that any inaccuracies can be addressed beforehand; and
Allowing only conviction (not arrest) records to be reported.
[lecture from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_check]
Discussion Question: Do you think potential employers have a right to know so much about an applicant? Why or why not?
Homework: Prepare five questions that you think should be asked in an interview for Thursday's class. [yep, real work! Must be done – Thursday you'll be paired up to do mock interviews.]
"You may have heard on the radio that Ms. Gilmore-Danes has a doctor's appointment today. I'm sure it's just a routine check-up and that everything is fine." It is clear, though, that Piper is somewhat concerned.
"Anyway, that means you're, once again, stuck with me. Last Thursday we learned about four different types of court systems in the US. Today we're going to learn more about the Federal Courts."
The federal courts are a branch of the federal government, and include:
General jurisdiction courts:
United States district courts
United States court of appeals (except the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)
Supreme Court of the United States
Subject-matter jurisdiction courts:
United States bankruptcy courts
United States Tax Court
United States Court of International Trade
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
While federal courts are generally created by the U.S. Congress under the constitutional power described in Article III, many of the specialized courts are created under the authority granted in Article I.
Greater power is vested in Article III courts because the greater control that Congress is able to exercise over Article I courts would threaten the balance of power between the branches of government.
Article III requires the establishment of a Supreme Court, and permits the U.S. Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. In theory, Congress could eliminate the entire federal judiciary except for a single Supreme Court Justice (who would be the Chief Justice by default). However, the first Congress immediately established a system of lower federal courts through the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Levels of U.S. Federal Courts
The Federal District Courts are the general federal trial courts, although in many cases Congress has passed statutes which divert original jurisdiction to the above-mentioned specialized courts or to administrative law judges (ALJs). In such cases, the federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such lower bodies.
The Federal Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate courts. They operate under a system of mandatory review which means they must hear all appeals from the lower courts.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court is the court of last resort. It generally operates under discretionary review, meaning that it can pick and choose cases (through grants of writ of certiorari) and hear only the non-frivolous appeals that present truly novel issues. In a few unusual situations (like lawsuits between state governments) it sits as a court of original jurisdiction and must hear the case.
The U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for providing protection for the federal judiciary and transporting federal prisoners.
Limitations on U.S. Federal Courts
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as placing some additional restrictions on the federal courts. For example, the doctrines of mootness, ripeness and standing prohibit district courts from issuing advisory opinions. Other doctrines, such as the abstention doctrines and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine limit the power of lower federal courts to disturb rulings made by state courts.
[lecture from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts]
Discussion Question: Do you think the federal courts have too much influence or not enough?
Homework: 100 words on the general jurisdiction court of your choice (c&p okay, but must actually do it to count)
***
HR Management – Sixth Period [2/7]
"If you listen to the radio at all, then you know Ms. Gilmore-Danes has a doctor's appointment today. I'm sure everything is fine."
Piper paused a moment before continuing.
"Last week we talked about why people do background checks. Today we're going to learn what kind of things can turn up on them and the problems they can cause."
Possible Information Included
The amount of information included on a background check depends to a large degree on the sensitivity of the reason for which it is conducted—e.g., somebody seeking employment at a minimum wage job would be subject to far fewer background check requirements then somebody applying to work for the FBI.
Criminal and incarceration records.
Litigation records. Employers are always terrified of employees who routinely file discrimination lawsuits even if a firing was clearly for cause. Also, in the U.S., employers that do work for the government do not like to hire whistleblowers who have a history of filing qui tam suits.
Driving and vehicle records. Employers in the transportation sector keep insurance premiums down by hiring those with a clean driving record--eg, those without a history of accidents or traffic tickets.
Drug tests are used for a variety of reasons--corporate ethics, measuring potential employee performance, and keeping workers' compensation premiums down.
Education records. These are used primarily to see if the potential employee had in fact received a college degree. There are reports of SAT scores being requested by employers as well.
Employment records. These usually range from simple verbal confirmations of past employment and timeframe to deeper, such as discussions about performance, activities and accomplishments, and relations with others.
Financial information: Individuals with poor credit scores, liens, civil judgments, or those who have filed for bankruptcy may be at an additional risk of stealing from the company.
Licensing records. A government authority that has some oversight over professional conduct of its licensees will also maintain records regarding the licensee, such as personal information, education, complaints, investigations, and disciplinary actions.
Military records. Although not as common today as it was in the past fifty years, employers frequently requested the specifics of one's military discharge.
Social Security Number (or equivalent outside the US). A fraudulent SSN may be indicative of identity theft, insufficient citizenship, or concealment of a "past life".
Other interpersonal interviews. Employers will usually wish to speak with potential employees' references to gauge employability. More intensive background checks can involve interviews with anybody that knew or previously knew the applicant--such as teachers, friends, coworkers, and family members.
Controversies
Drug tests and credit checks for employment are highly controversial practices. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: "While some people are not concerned about background investigations, others are uncomfortable with the idea of an investigator poking around in their personal history. In-depth background checks could unearth information that is irrelevant, taken out of context, or just plain wrong. A further concern is that the report might include information that is illegal to use for hiring purposes or which comes from questionable sources."
In May 2002, allegedly improper post-hire background checks conducted by Northwest Airlines were the subject of a civil lawsuit between Northwest and 10,000 of their mechanics.
In the case of an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, background checks can continue including the arrest record for up to seven years, per § 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:
Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing . . . Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
Subsection (b) provides for an exception if the report is in connection with "the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more".
Some proposals for decreasing potential harm to innocent applicants include:
Furnishing the applicant with a copy of the report before it is given to the employer, so that any inaccuracies can be addressed beforehand; and
Allowing only conviction (not arrest) records to be reported.
[lecture from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_check]
Discussion Question: Do you think potential employers have a right to know so much about an applicant? Why or why not?
Homework: Prepare five questions that you think should be asked in an interview for Thursday's class. [yep, real work! Must be done – Thursday you'll be paired up to do mock interviews.]