To contact us Click HERE
Since I got rid of cable and Internet at my home in 2006, I have had even more time to read, even read what many would call non-essential, although I believe as long as one is reading, each time they read they will learn something and improve both their problem solving and critical thinking skills. I have become particularly fond of the defense department and federal Business Opportunities Websites whenever I am around an internet connection, as well as my usual slew of daily foreign newspapers.
Consequently, in light of several recent events, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the general US citizenry lacks common sense, has little if any knowledge of the constitution and will do anything to perceive that they can be safer than they already are, whether by man-made law or statue. With media and government focused on several mass shootings over the past few weeks starting with Aurora, Colorado, then detouring to Wisconsin, via Chicago and ending up in College Station, Texas, seems all folk are talking about is gun control. Personally outside of the previous reasons, I think that another distinction concerns the manner in which city folk and we country folk view hand guns and rifles. But more troubling, is that without out question, folks speak about gun control as if they are battling an invasive species of locus or the Ebola virus.
The gun control mantra always pops up and like terrorism it is just a scare tactic. It is as played out as the hook “who let the dogs out.” First, there more people are killed in auto accidents than by guns and frankly, automobiles are probably the biggest killer in our nation , but you won’t hear anyone claim that cars should be controlled in any form or fashion claiming they are a need, when there once was a time they did not exist. Might I add guns did exist then?
My fear is the position that many take regarding gun control: that only the government and police should have guns, in particular automatic weapons. With this I vehemently disagree. First, saying this is like saying only the government should have the internet and the rest of us citizens should be limited to paper and pencil. Not to mention I completely agree with Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to his nephew, suggested in so many words that when only the police and government has guns, such is a police state. This is the common sense I am referring too. I can’t comprehend why folk would want only the police and government to have guns. On the local level from what we have seen in Jonesboro, Arkansas regarding 21-year-old Chavis Carter, of Southaven, Miss., who was handcuffed behind his back and died from a gunshot wound to the right temple July 28 despite being left handed, frisked twice by Jonesboro police officers and in the back of the police car at the time.
Then there was what happened last week in Chicago, when an off-duty Chicago police officer while heading home through the town of Maywood, bike hit 4-year old Taniyah Middleton. When the girl’s father Christopher, 26, confronted the officer over the incident, the officer shot and killed him. Or what also recently happened in Miami, when police officers broke a man's arm and falsely prosecuted him after he refused an undercover officer's offer of prostitution. Guillermo Cuadra said he had just $3 on him when an apparent prostitute asked him, "Do you want a fuck?" as he was stopped at a traffic light. The cops held him for 4 hours in a squad car, rather than taking him to a hospital, and when he complained of the excruciating pain.
I’m not even finished, for then there is what happened on Friday August 10, 2012 around 11:30 pm, when off-duty Rochester, NY Police officer Francisco Santiago, a 6 year veteran, was rear-ended, doesn’t call 911, pulls his personal firearm and shoots two unarmed African-American men several times, injuring both with multiple bullet wounds to their torsos and lower extremities.
So if you asked me, it would be a major threat if only the police had guns, given that they think they are the law or even above it when in fact they represent the law. If they did the latter, I still wouldn’t support the contention they should be the only ones with guns – automatic weapons. This is the police argument. Although I live in the country, I also know that according to the Bureau of Justice data, that African Americans, especially if they have annual household incomes of around $15,000, are more likely to be the victims and targets of violent crimes. Yet this is not the real fear I have, it is the aforementioned pertaining to the police and the federal government.
Reading the web sites I mentioned earlier, I saw a solicitation originally issued by the Department of Homeland Security in April for 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets which was just updated on Friday requesting an additional 750 million rounds of ammunition, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls. This I accepted at first, but was wondering about the additional request, but they are DHS.
But in addition to that, there has been a rash of strange solicitations I have noticed for federal government agencies. Solicitations for large amounts of ammunition and weapons just since July. For example, Solicitation Number DG-1330-12-RQ-1028 (a request by The DOC NOAA National Weather Service - Western Acquisition Division in Boulder) for the following: “16,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols to be factory-loaded .40 S&W caliber, 180-grain jacketed hollow point.” Specific deliveries and amounts include to be delivered include 8,000 rounds to: Ross Lane DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, NED 130 Oak Street, Suite 5, Ellsworth, ME, 04605; 8,000 rounds to: Troy Audyatis, DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, NED 53 North 6th Street, Room 214 New Bedford, MA, 02740., 16, Cases. The solicitation also includes and order for 24,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols to be factory-loaded .40 S&W caliber, 180-grain jacketed hollow point (JHP)to be delivered to Jeff Radonski, A/DSAC DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, SED 263 13th Avenue South, Suite 109, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701., 24, Cases. The last request pertains to 6,000 rounds of frangible, 125-grain CFRHT .40 caliber. These are to be delivered to James Cassin DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, NED 3350 Highway 138, Suite 218, Wall, NJ, 07719, 6, Cases."
Another strange request similar to the aforementioned was made last Aug 22, 2011 by The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Acquisition Management. This request was for a large allotment of “SIG Sauer Model P229 Semi-Automatic Pistol (P229); E29R-357-BSS-G; Caliber .357 SIG; DA/SA old style Alloy Frame; Stainless Slide; Black Nitron Finish; DA/SA Trigger; Supplied with three MecGar twelve (12)-round magazines and Trijicon three (3) Dot (White ? Glow Green) Night Sights; Milled locking inserts; and, Manufacturer carry case.”
This past June, Solicitation Number: HSSS01-12-Q-0118 reveals a request for .300 Winchester Magnum, as described in ANSI/SAAMI Z299.4, small arms ammunition. The purchased quantity will be 40,000 rounds, with two options for 20,000 rounds, which may be exercised by the Government, based upon the need to maintain an on-hand supply, at minimum essential quantities.
Now I am not finished. A few weeks ago, on Aug 01, 2012 Solicitation Number TSBQ201200002 was made on behalf of The United States Capitol Police, Training Services Bureau to 600 cases of “165 Grain Gold Dot Hollow Point, 40 S & amp;W, 1,000/Case in 2 equal shipments of 300,000 rds. each. The first delivery no later than September 30, 2012 and second delivery no later than December 30, 2012.” In addition they ordered 200 cases of LE132, 12 ga, 00 Buck, 2 ¾", 9 pellets (250/case) and several other munitions batches for delivery no later than December 30, 2012.
The above information is public domain and doesn’t include the recent request by the Social Security Administration for 174,000 rounds of ammunition. Don’t know why NOAA, Social Security Administration or EPA need all of these bullets, but they want to stop me from buying in bulk. Seems that all of these are indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity (IDIQ) firm fixed price (FFP) contracts (meaning the Feds can activate the order at any time during the 5 year contract period). Most of the ammunition (.40 cal and .357 magnum rounds) are primarily handgun ammunition. Handgun is used for close combat situations and urban warfare operations where engagement of 40 feet or less is expected.
I firmly believe that all should have top shelf technology including me and that means automatic assault rifles. My uncle used to tell me if I had to use a handgun I was too close. The Batman and Sikh shootings with all the alleged home-made bombs and white supremacist connection just shows me the mainsteam media is involved in all of this too and trying to use Orwellian newspeak and propaganda to boogyman folks to give up the second amendment. Not me, I’d rather if I had to defend my self out here in the country miles away from police and people, open a clip instead of a one-shot at a time pistol or rifle. Both Franklin and Gandi were correct. Franklin when he said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And Mahatma Gandhiwho wrote: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Me, I will always ask If I can bring my gat accepting completely that what ever answer one provides, I will have already made my mind up.
30 Eylül 2012 Pazar
Jobs Report Isn’t Good News as Most Think
To contact us Click HERE
This past Friday, the August jobs report was released by the U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics. According to the report, total nonfarm payroll employmentrose by 96,000 in August, and the unemployment rate edged down to 8.1 percent.Specific employment increases were in food services and drinking places, inprofessional and technical services, and in health care.
Almost automatically, proponents of the Obama Administration as well aspolitical pundits touted this as good news and as being proof of theeffectiveness of the President’s economic policy. Unfortunately, few if anypolitical talking heads discussed this in reference to the general citizenry ofAmerica or offer that the aforementioned may not be the case.
If one actually takes the time to read the report and do some basic math,they would clearly see that for the average American, the data does not providesuch a rosy picture. First, is the obvious observation of that 119,000 fewerpersons were employed in August compared to the month of July and thatManufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000).
The reality is that around 89 million people in America are unemployed andthe value of the dollar has started to retract if one pays any attention to theForex markets. Moreover, Gold is up 3.1 percent and silver is up 7.1 percentwhen the administration and the Federal Reserve are thinking about another phaseof quantitative easing (QE3).
Job loss will continue to be a problem for whoever is in the Whitehouse. Inparticular with the strange policies of the Federal reserve. Bernanke knew in 1988 that quantitative easing was ineffective work because bank lending channeltypically close if banks have access to external sources of funding (otherpeople money). Yet, Bernanke and the present administration continue toadvocate that in order to revive economic growth and avert deflation, QE is anecessity.
The jobs reports show that QE only makes the rich richer. In fact the Fedhas increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to $2.9 trillion thedifference is $2 trillion (or 13% of GDP) while the job report shows that 58%of Jobs Created Pay Only $8 hour or less.
Now I know many will say I am just bashing Obama, that I am jealous of thePresident and that I just don't know what I'm talking about because the jobsreport shows the President is doing a good job. They may even say thatthe CBO (Congressional Budget Office), as the Presidents often states supportshis economic policies. Unfortunately, on the CBO's track record, I trust themas much as I do a white man with a sheet to have lighter fluid and a match at aBBQ. Let the CBO tell it, from their unrealistic view of this economy, America never goes into a recession.
Currently,the CBO is assuming a deficit of $3.5 trillion from 2012-2021 and if pasthistory is any indication, they are at least likely off by 60% meaning it isreally close to $10 trillion. Recall that just ten years ago, the CBO predictedthat the US deficit would be at $7.6 trillion currently, but the actual numberas of this week is above the $16 trillion mark. Between 2002 and 2010 all oftheir real GDP projections were between 2.6% and 2.9%. By overestimatinggrowth, you overestimate revenues, which underestimate the deficit and givespoliticians the impression they have more of our money to spend before they getinto trouble.
Last week at the DNC, Obama suggested that he would cut the deficit butstrongly asserted he would use money saved from the wars to reduce the deficit,which is strange since that money doesn’t exist since the war is being paid forby borrowed money mainly from China. All of this seems to be ignored whendiscussing the economy and the jobs picture, but what can one expect, for onlyby American math can you have 119,000 Fewer Employed in August than July and unemployment rate go down.
Almost automatically, proponents of the Obama Administration as well aspolitical pundits touted this as good news and as being proof of theeffectiveness of the President’s economic policy. Unfortunately, few if anypolitical talking heads discussed this in reference to the general citizenry ofAmerica or offer that the aforementioned may not be the case.
If one actually takes the time to read the report and do some basic math,they would clearly see that for the average American, the data does not providesuch a rosy picture. First, is the obvious observation of that 119,000 fewerpersons were employed in August compared to the month of July and thatManufacturing employment edged down in August (-15,000).
The reality is that around 89 million people in America are unemployed andthe value of the dollar has started to retract if one pays any attention to theForex markets. Moreover, Gold is up 3.1 percent and silver is up 7.1 percentwhen the administration and the Federal Reserve are thinking about another phaseof quantitative easing (QE3).
Job loss will continue to be a problem for whoever is in the Whitehouse. Inparticular with the strange policies of the Federal reserve. Bernanke knew in 1988 that quantitative easing was ineffective work because bank lending channeltypically close if banks have access to external sources of funding (otherpeople money). Yet, Bernanke and the present administration continue toadvocate that in order to revive economic growth and avert deflation, QE is anecessity.
The jobs reports show that QE only makes the rich richer. In fact the Fedhas increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to $2.9 trillion thedifference is $2 trillion (or 13% of GDP) while the job report shows that 58%of Jobs Created Pay Only $8 hour or less.
Now I know many will say I am just bashing Obama, that I am jealous of thePresident and that I just don't know what I'm talking about because the jobsreport shows the President is doing a good job. They may even say thatthe CBO (Congressional Budget Office), as the Presidents often states supportshis economic policies. Unfortunately, on the CBO's track record, I trust themas much as I do a white man with a sheet to have lighter fluid and a match at aBBQ. Let the CBO tell it, from their unrealistic view of this economy, America never goes into a recession.
Currently,the CBO is assuming a deficit of $3.5 trillion from 2012-2021 and if pasthistory is any indication, they are at least likely off by 60% meaning it isreally close to $10 trillion. Recall that just ten years ago, the CBO predictedthat the US deficit would be at $7.6 trillion currently, but the actual numberas of this week is above the $16 trillion mark. Between 2002 and 2010 all oftheir real GDP projections were between 2.6% and 2.9%. By overestimatinggrowth, you overestimate revenues, which underestimate the deficit and givespoliticians the impression they have more of our money to spend before they getinto trouble.
Last week at the DNC, Obama suggested that he would cut the deficit butstrongly asserted he would use money saved from the wars to reduce the deficit,which is strange since that money doesn’t exist since the war is being paid forby borrowed money mainly from China. All of this seems to be ignored whendiscussing the economy and the jobs picture, but what can one expect, for onlyby American math can you have 119,000 Fewer Employed in August than July and unemployment rate go down.
Obama’s Neoliberalism Bites him in the Libyan Ass
To contact us Click HERE
As I write, this, I already anticipate a backlash from the mass of Obama felatio administrators within the African American community, but I know all too well as Huxley wrote, “facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored and that one cannot argue with an idiot for they will beat you down with experience and win every time.
The situation which the US find’s itself in Syria was all our doing and 99.9 percent of the blame can be placed at the feet of the current Administration, President Barack Obama in particular. For it is President Obama's incoherent and fatuous policy in Libya based on the use of force when he wants to when US national security is not even in jeopardy that got Ambassador Steven’s killed.
It all started last year. First when President Obama ignored the Constitution and decided without Congressional approval, albeit he didn’t agree with such when the same thing was done by former President George W. Bush just four years ago. In fact while a Senator Obama when being interviewed by the Boston Globe said: “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. History has shown us time and again…that military action is most successful when authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
The fact is that this same man singlehandedly committed the US to war against Libya, ignoring that the US had neither been attacked by nor was in danger from Libya and had no constitutional reason for any military intervention at all. I repeat, the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
But it was clear that being a constitutional scholar, he was not concerned about this. In an address to the nation delivered from the National Defense University in March 2011, a day before the military effort against Gaddafi’s forces, the President spoke of US military action in Libya and indicated that NATO would be taking the lead from the US adding that Americas’ role in Libya would be to defend those under attack by Gadhafi’s forces. This he said although the U.S. runs NATO, finances 22 percent of NATO’s budget and is the nation that gives all the marching orders. In essence Obama unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign nation as Bush did before him. Strangely enough, based on his assertion that military action in Libya was in the vital interest of the US. This was his position albeit Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the events in Libya were not in the “vital national interest to the United States.”
Despite Obama’s incessant statements suggesting that the operation is only to protect civilians, the military intervention aid the rebel factions in their advance against the African leader. Although he will not admit to such, President Obama is interventionists who on the one hand stated he had no desire for US military intervention in Libya, noting that the US will not use military invention, yet imposed a no-fly zone which in fact is “direct military intervention.”
What the President called US “humanitarian intervention” directed at a nonexistent US aggressor, undermined the concept of collective security, international law and worse of all is arbitrary. Obama’s Libyan policy was historically the same as his predecessor and allowed him, on behalf of America, to exploit weaknesses and divisions in the nations they interfere with all Willy nilly.
His prose had continued to justify these actions. He said, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” But words and fancy slogans do not make up for the observation that he had never considered the ramifications of such actions. The question remains Mr. President if this was an issue of US national security, did your actions in Libya make America safer?
Attacking Gaddafi got him lynched and one wonders if the administration ever asked or thought if this outcome would endear and make Libyan thankful for this? A nation which is already hated in which view America as constantly attacking Islam and taking their oil. Not to mention, was there any after thought that what has just occurred with the attack on the US mission, that killing or attacking Gaddafi’s without destroying his regime is just asking for increased terrorism against Americans? Or whether or not replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism, namely al Qaeda really a good idea?
This is the backward neoliberal foreign policy logic that Obama uses and was adopted and modified based on Bush’s neoconservative policy. We support dictator in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and say nothing, yet maintain a different standard for the same actions as it pertains to Libya and currently Syria.
Obama policy in Libya in concert with the senseless deaths of Libyan people is what created this opening for those who would love to nothing more than destroy America. The recent events even give more substance to the position of China and Russia regarding Libya then and Syria now which was: “If you try to impose anything on others, the result will be disastrous.”
Obama’s foreign policy, for a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is the antithesis to the concept of state sovereignty, for it appears that state sovereignty is only problematic to the US when it is applied to places like Libya or Syria. Notwithstanding nations who have had decades of general peace, which Obama policy has now replaced with war and violence and instability. The Obama Administration’s foreign policy is typical of US progressive Presidents who take any self-selected event or issue as a reason to self-invite the U.S. to enter conflicts it has no reason to join, especially if national security is the standard (Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt).
Obama said “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Are we different Mr. President? Again are we safer Mr. President? Aren’t the images of slaughter still occurring? or have you asked the mainstream media not to report on them?
The situation which the US find’s itself in Syria was all our doing and 99.9 percent of the blame can be placed at the feet of the current Administration, President Barack Obama in particular. For it is President Obama's incoherent and fatuous policy in Libya based on the use of force when he wants to when US national security is not even in jeopardy that got Ambassador Steven’s killed.
It all started last year. First when President Obama ignored the Constitution and decided without Congressional approval, albeit he didn’t agree with such when the same thing was done by former President George W. Bush just four years ago. In fact while a Senator Obama when being interviewed by the Boston Globe said: “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. History has shown us time and again…that military action is most successful when authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
The fact is that this same man singlehandedly committed the US to war against Libya, ignoring that the US had neither been attacked by nor was in danger from Libya and had no constitutional reason for any military intervention at all. I repeat, the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
But it was clear that being a constitutional scholar, he was not concerned about this. In an address to the nation delivered from the National Defense University in March 2011, a day before the military effort against Gaddafi’s forces, the President spoke of US military action in Libya and indicated that NATO would be taking the lead from the US adding that Americas’ role in Libya would be to defend those under attack by Gadhafi’s forces. This he said although the U.S. runs NATO, finances 22 percent of NATO’s budget and is the nation that gives all the marching orders. In essence Obama unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign nation as Bush did before him. Strangely enough, based on his assertion that military action in Libya was in the vital interest of the US. This was his position albeit Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the events in Libya were not in the “vital national interest to the United States.”
Despite Obama’s incessant statements suggesting that the operation is only to protect civilians, the military intervention aid the rebel factions in their advance against the African leader. Although he will not admit to such, President Obama is interventionists who on the one hand stated he had no desire for US military intervention in Libya, noting that the US will not use military invention, yet imposed a no-fly zone which in fact is “direct military intervention.”
What the President called US “humanitarian intervention” directed at a nonexistent US aggressor, undermined the concept of collective security, international law and worse of all is arbitrary. Obama’s Libyan policy was historically the same as his predecessor and allowed him, on behalf of America, to exploit weaknesses and divisions in the nations they interfere with all Willy nilly.
His prose had continued to justify these actions. He said, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” But words and fancy slogans do not make up for the observation that he had never considered the ramifications of such actions. The question remains Mr. President if this was an issue of US national security, did your actions in Libya make America safer?
Attacking Gaddafi got him lynched and one wonders if the administration ever asked or thought if this outcome would endear and make Libyan thankful for this? A nation which is already hated in which view America as constantly attacking Islam and taking their oil. Not to mention, was there any after thought that what has just occurred with the attack on the US mission, that killing or attacking Gaddafi’s without destroying his regime is just asking for increased terrorism against Americans? Or whether or not replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism, namely al Qaeda really a good idea?
This is the backward neoliberal foreign policy logic that Obama uses and was adopted and modified based on Bush’s neoconservative policy. We support dictator in Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and say nothing, yet maintain a different standard for the same actions as it pertains to Libya and currently Syria.
Obama policy in Libya in concert with the senseless deaths of Libyan people is what created this opening for those who would love to nothing more than destroy America. The recent events even give more substance to the position of China and Russia regarding Libya then and Syria now which was: “If you try to impose anything on others, the result will be disastrous.”
Obama’s foreign policy, for a man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is the antithesis to the concept of state sovereignty, for it appears that state sovereignty is only problematic to the US when it is applied to places like Libya or Syria. Notwithstanding nations who have had decades of general peace, which Obama policy has now replaced with war and violence and instability. The Obama Administration’s foreign policy is typical of US progressive Presidents who take any self-selected event or issue as a reason to self-invite the U.S. to enter conflicts it has no reason to join, especially if national security is the standard (Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt).
Obama said “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Are we different Mr. President? Again are we safer Mr. President? Aren’t the images of slaughter still occurring? or have you asked the mainstream media not to report on them?
Recent Poverty Reports Indicates Economic Picture For African Americans Geting Worse.
To contact us Click HERE
Lastweek the US Census Bureau released its annual poverty report. The findings arestartling and in many ways in contrast to what have been proffered by the ObamaAdministration as it pertains to economic improvement and growth in the USeconomy. The new figures show that things are getting worse for Americanfamilies.
Findingsindicate that those classified by the government as poor remained at recordhighs in 2011 while the gap between rich and poor increased. One in fiveAmerican children was poor in 2011 and the poverty rate of young adults age25-34 living with their parents, based on their own income alone, was 43.7percent – a reduction of fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust forinflation since the year 2000. In addition, the median household incomedeclined to $50,054 in 2011 -- a 1.5 percent decline from the previous year,not to mention that the median household income has now fallen for 4 years in arow.
Theseresults are in concert with other studies. The National Employment Law Projectrecently reported that 58 percent of new jobs during the Great Recession werelow-wage, paying between $7.69 and $13.83. Moreover, the Gini coefficient,which is how social scientist and economist measure the level of socialinequality in a country, has grown at the fastest rate on records dating backto 1993. During 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United Stateswere on food stamps.
Thesame is consistent for older Americans. In 1984, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or olderwas 10 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35or younger. As of 2011, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 orolder is 47 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone35 or younger. Overall about 46.2 million Americans live below the officialpoverty line in 2011, the highest number in more than half a century. This istroubling given the government’s poverty threshold, set at an annual income of$23,021 for a family of four.
TheCensus data showed that median household income, adjusted for inflation, fellby 1.5 percent from the previous year. The figure was 8.1 percent lower than in2007 and 8.9 percent lower than its peak in 1999. The income of the typical USfamily in 2011 fell for the fourth straight year and sank to levels last seenin 1995.
Somewould ask how this is connected with the current administration. First, thewage-cutting initiated by the Obama administration, which imposed anacross-the-board 50 percent cut in the wages of newly hired workers as part ofits 2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, was a significant reason forthe additional reduction in household income due to declining wages. Even withthe aforementioned, the Obama administration has stated openly that the povertyrate remained unchanged from 2010 to hail the report as a vindication of itspolicies.
Giventhe new round of quantitative easing (QE3), it is clear that the Obamaadministration’s policy focus has been and remains to protect and increase thewealth of the US corporate elite at the expense of the majority of thepopulation. There was no job growth from the first rounds of QE and anotherround just means banks will get more money while Wall Street suffers. TheAdministration states that GOP trickledown economics doesn’t work, yet implementsQE which is trickledown economics.
TheCensus report notes the failure not just of one administration or any politicalparty, but rather how politics is design to serve big corporations. Regardlesswho wins, one can expect the same - mass unemployment, wage-cutting, povertyand social inequality for most Americans, especially minorities.
Findingsindicate that those classified by the government as poor remained at recordhighs in 2011 while the gap between rich and poor increased. One in fiveAmerican children was poor in 2011 and the poverty rate of young adults age25-34 living with their parents, based on their own income alone, was 43.7percent – a reduction of fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust forinflation since the year 2000. In addition, the median household incomedeclined to $50,054 in 2011 -- a 1.5 percent decline from the previous year,not to mention that the median household income has now fallen for 4 years in arow.
Theseresults are in concert with other studies. The National Employment Law Projectrecently reported that 58 percent of new jobs during the Great Recession werelow-wage, paying between $7.69 and $13.83. Moreover, the Gini coefficient,which is how social scientist and economist measure the level of socialinequality in a country, has grown at the fastest rate on records dating backto 1993. During 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United Stateswere on food stamps.
Thesame is consistent for older Americans. In 1984, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 or olderwas 10 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone 35or younger. As of 2011, the median net worth of households led by someone 65 orolder is 47 times larger than the median net worth of households led by someone35 or younger. Overall about 46.2 million Americans live below the officialpoverty line in 2011, the highest number in more than half a century. This istroubling given the government’s poverty threshold, set at an annual income of$23,021 for a family of four.
TheCensus data showed that median household income, adjusted for inflation, fellby 1.5 percent from the previous year. The figure was 8.1 percent lower than in2007 and 8.9 percent lower than its peak in 1999. The income of the typical USfamily in 2011 fell for the fourth straight year and sank to levels last seenin 1995.
Somewould ask how this is connected with the current administration. First, thewage-cutting initiated by the Obama administration, which imposed anacross-the-board 50 percent cut in the wages of newly hired workers as part ofits 2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, was a significant reason forthe additional reduction in household income due to declining wages. Even withthe aforementioned, the Obama administration has stated openly that the povertyrate remained unchanged from 2010 to hail the report as a vindication of itspolicies.
Giventhe new round of quantitative easing (QE3), it is clear that the Obamaadministration’s policy focus has been and remains to protect and increase thewealth of the US corporate elite at the expense of the majority of thepopulation. There was no job growth from the first rounds of QE and anotherround just means banks will get more money while Wall Street suffers. TheAdministration states that GOP trickledown economics doesn’t work, yet implementsQE which is trickledown economics.
TheCensus report notes the failure not just of one administration or any politicalparty, but rather how politics is design to serve big corporations. Regardlesswho wins, one can expect the same - mass unemployment, wage-cutting, povertyand social inequality for most Americans, especially minorities.
Racial, Socioeconomic Segregation Still Rampant in Schools
To contact us Click HERE
The impact and history of racial segregation in America is well documented. It has moved in theory from the 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case that determined that "separate but equal" was constitutional, to the 1954 landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson and ruled that segregation was "inherently unequal." Although segregation is no longer the law, it is still a very real part of America, in particular in education where the Brown v. Board of Education decision was supposed to obviate such practices.
A new study based on a new analysis of Department of Education data shows that whites are still largely concentrated in schools with other whites and that black and Latino students tend to be in class rooms mostly with other black and Latinos. The report was authored by Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Orefield suggest that “Extreme segregation is becoming more common” in America.
The reported noted that across the nation, 43 percent of Latinos and 38 percent of blacks attend schools where fewer than 10 percent of their classmates are white. , according to the report, released last, findings suggest that blacks and Latinos are twice as likely as white or Asian students to attend schools with a substantial majority of poor children. In fact, more than one in seven black and Latino students attend schools where fewer than 1 percent of their classmates are white based on enrollment data from 2009-2010.
States such as California, New York, Georgia and Texas, and cities including include Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia and Washington demonstrated the most defined patters of racial segregation.
The report’s authors are critical of the Obama administration failure to pursue integration policies, and noted that the Administration’s support of charter schools was helping create “the most segregated sector of schools for black students.”
A new study based on a new analysis of Department of Education data shows that whites are still largely concentrated in schools with other whites and that black and Latino students tend to be in class rooms mostly with other black and Latinos. The report was authored by Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Orefield suggest that “Extreme segregation is becoming more common” in America.
The reported noted that across the nation, 43 percent of Latinos and 38 percent of blacks attend schools where fewer than 10 percent of their classmates are white. , according to the report, released last, findings suggest that blacks and Latinos are twice as likely as white or Asian students to attend schools with a substantial majority of poor children. In fact, more than one in seven black and Latino students attend schools where fewer than 1 percent of their classmates are white based on enrollment data from 2009-2010.
States such as California, New York, Georgia and Texas, and cities including include Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia and Washington demonstrated the most defined patters of racial segregation.
The report’s authors are critical of the Obama administration failure to pursue integration policies, and noted that the Administration’s support of charter schools was helping create “the most segregated sector of schools for black students.”
29 Eylül 2012 Cumartesi
Robert Fitzpatrick Quoted by the ABA Journal
To contact us Click HERE
Robert B. Fitzpatrick has been quoted in the January 2012 edition of the ABA Journal. In an article by Brian Sullivan entitled “The Last Word”, Mr. Fitzpatrick discusses the potentially game-changing effect that a simple apology can have on the course of litigation. The Article ends with a clarion call towards civility as a positive-sum strategy for both sides of a litigation, both monetarily and emotionally. The article may be found on Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC at http://www.robertbfitzpatrick.com/papers/ABA-Journal-1-2012-The-Last-Word-Article.pdf.
Please be sure to visit our website at http://RobertBFitzpatrick.com
Observations Regarding the Latest Supreme Court Decisions
To contact us Click HERE
There has been a spate of opinion activity from the Court since the holidays. There follows some observations regarding some of these opinions and a case the Court will consider at its conference today.
1. The “Ministerial Exception” Case
Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and Sch. v. EEOC, No. 10-553, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 578 (S.Ct. Jan. 11, 2012) is the much-discussed unanimous opinion adopting a “ministerial exception” to the anti-discrimination laws. Rather than repeat here what has been said in many other blogs about the opinion, I note that the Chief Justice, in the final footnote of his opinion states: “District Courts have power to consider [discrimination] claims in cases of this sort, and to decide whether the claim can proceed or is instead barred by the ministerial exception.” Id. at *40-*41 n.4.
2. Is the Court Fixated on Causation?
In a non-employment case issued Wednesday, January 11, 2012, the Court, in Pac. Operators Offshore v. Valladolid, No. 10-507, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 577 (S.Ct. Jan. 11, 2012), , interpreting a section of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Justices Scalia and Thomas resumed their debate over the appropriate articulation of “but-for” causation. As this blog has noted in the past, Justice Thomas appears to have a more “liberal” view on the subject; whereas Justice Scalia seems steeped in the mire of traditional tort law debates about proximate cause and cause-in-fact. In the Court’s RICO causation jurisprudence, this debate between the two Justices first reared its head. See ANZA v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006).
In Pac. Operators Offshore v. Valladolid, the Court was addressing the statutory phrase “resulting from”. Justice Thomas rejected an interpretation from the Third Circuit in Curtis v. Schlumberger Offshore Serv., Inc., 849 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1988), which had adopted a version of “but-for” causation. Rather than embracing “but-for” causation, Justice Thomas articulated a “substantial nexus” test. Justice Scalia, in a concurring opinion, criticized Justice Thomas’ test and stated that the standard used in negligence cases for proximate cause was the “substantial factor” test.
One can but wonder whether this rather dry debate will someday be of meaningful significance to practitioners. Nonetheless, it provides some insights into the Court’s thinking on causation issues, and such issues abound in employment cases, particularly after Gross.
3. When is Jurisdiction Jurisdictional?
In another non-employment case, the Court’s majority provided practitioners with some assistance in determining which requirements are jurisdictional in the sense that if one fails to fulfill the requirement, the case may be dismissed at any time. And, the Court provided some significant guidance as to what are not jurisdictional requirements in that sense, but rather “non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules”. In Gonzalez v. Thaler, No. 10-895, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 574 (S.Ct. Jan. 10, 2012) an Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act case, Justice Sotomayor, writing for the majority, stated that the “Court has endeavored in recent years to bring some discipline to the use of the term jurisdictional” and to make a “stricter distinction between truly jurisdictional rules” and “non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules.” Justice Sotomayor proceeded to paint a “clear statement” from the legislature rule as a potential bright line in such disputes.
Justice Scalia, in a dissent worth reading if only for his colorful rhetoric, mocks the majority’s assertion that the Court has sought to “bring some discipline to the use of the term jurisdictional,” stating that “[i]f that is true, discipline has become a code word for eliminating inconvenient statutory limits on our jurisdiction.” Justice Scalia goes on to state: “[w]hat began as an effort to bring some discipline to the use of the term jurisdictional…shows signs of becoming a libertine, liberating romp through our established jurisprudence.” And then, in a quite obvious swipe at Justice Breyer, whose new book Making Democracy Work, a Judge’s View, advocates a purposivist theory of statutory interpretation, Justice Scalia, in a footnote, states that “[t]he Court’s free-wheeling purposivism defies textual analysis.”
4. Arbitration Redux
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 575 (S.Ct. Jan. 10, 2012), in which Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for an 8 Justice majority. In CompuCredit, the Court reversed, yet again, the Ninth Circuit in yet another pre-dispute arbitration agreement case. Here, the case involved arbitration of claims under the Credit Repair Organization Act, an act which contains a provision barring waiver of the cause of action. That provision is probably the only difference between the statute at issue in this case and the statutes at issue in Gilmer (ADEA), McMahon (RICO), or Mitsubishi Motors (Clayton Act). The majority, speaking through Justice Scalia, had no difficulty, despite the provision barring a waiver, in finding that claims under this statute may be subject to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Justice Scalia’s answer to the waiver bar was stated as follows: “[I]f a cause-of-action provision mentioning judicial enforcement does not create a right to initial judicial enforcement, the waiver of initial judicial enforcement is not the waiver of a ‘right of the consumer’” sentences like the foregoing can only give all of us lawyers a bad name. I think it is nothing but circular logic, which I would have thought was anathema to Justice Scalia.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent, in which she recognizes that the Federal Arbitration Act, “standing alone,” favors the enforcement of arbitration agreements, but argued that no “unmistakably clear” statement by the legislature is necessary to proscribe the arbitration clause that CompuCredit sought to enforce.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, wrote a concurring opinion in which the two found that the statutory debate between the Justice Scalia majority and Justice Ginsburg in dissent was a draw, articulated as being “in equipoise.” As the arguments were equally compelling, Justice Sotomayor justified joining the majority on the ground that “opponents of arbitration…bear the burden of showing that Congress disallowed arbitration.”
5. No Bivens Remedy Implied Where State Tort Law Authorizes Adequate Alternative Damages
In Minneci v. Pollard, No. 10-1104, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 573 (S.Ct. Jan. 10, 2012), on Tuesday, the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer writing for an 8 Justice majority, held that there was no need to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) to an Eighth Amendment-based damages action against employees of a privately operated federal prison as state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions that will provide both significant deterrence and compensation. The Court refrained from providing a new and free-standing remedy in damages, even though state tort law may sometimes prove less generous than would a Bivens action, holding that the state remedy “need not be perfectly congruent.” The Court further noted that “Bivens actions, even if more generous to plaintiffs in some respects, may be less generous in others.” In general, the Court found that state tort law remedies provide “roughly similar incentives for potential defendants to comply with the Eighth Amendment while also providing roughly similar compensation to victims of violations.” Finally, the Court stated that “we can decide whether to imply a Bivens action in a case where the Eighth Amendment claim or state law differs significantly from those at issue here when and if such a case arises. The possibility of such a different future case does not provide sufficient grounds for reaching a different conclusion here.”
Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote a separate, concurring, opinion in which they stated that the Court had abandoned the power to create implied claims in the statutory field, citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 287 (2001), and then stating that the Court should do the same in the constitutional field, “where (presumably) an imagined ‘implication’ cannot even be repudiated by Congress.” Justice Scalia refers to Bivens, as he did in Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Melsko, 534 U.S. 61, 75 (2001) (Scalia, J., Concurring), as “a relic of the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action”.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion.
6. FLSA Tip-Credit May Go To The Supreme Court
Today, the Court has its first Friday the 13th conference of 2012 (there are three Friday the 13th’s this year – April 13 and July 13), and one of the petitions which it may take certiorari on is Applebee’s Int’l, Inc. v. Fast, Doc. No. 11-425, petition for cert. pending from 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011). The dispute in the case revolves around the tip credit rule set forth in 29 U.S.C. § § 203(m),(t) which permit employers to take a “tip-credit” towards their minimum-wage obligation for “tipped employees” engaged in an “occupation” in which they customarily and regularly receive more than $30/month in tips. The U.S. Department of Labor has internal guidance that an employer loses the benefit of the tip credit if a tipped employee performs duties that, while related to such employee’s occupation, are not by themselves purportedly directed towards producing tips if such time exceeds more than 20% of the employee’s total work time.
Here, the Eighth Circuit deferred to the DOL’s informal interpretation. In contrast, the Eleventh Circuit in Pellon v. Bus. Representation Int’l, Inc., 291 Fed. Appx. 310 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) rejected the 20% rule.
Please be sure to visit our website at http://RobertBFitzpatrick.com
Home Alone, Telecommuting, and Man’s Best Friend
To contact us Click HERE
For years, employers have fretted over a host of issues surrounding the increased desire on the part of some employees to telecommute and now pressure from government and environmental groups to ramp up with an extensive telecommute program. Over and above obvious issues like time and attendance, management counsel have raised concerns about worker compensation claims. For example, last year a New Jersey court awarded worker compensation survivor benefits to an AT&T manager’s family who had died of a blood clot attributed to sitting for long periods of time at her home work computer. Renner v. AT&T, No. A-2393-10T3, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1668 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 27, 2011).
Shortly prior to this decision, an Oregon appellate court awarded worker compensation benefits to a home-based worker who tripped over her small dog as she walked from her home to her nearby garage to retrieve some work-related supplies. Initially, the State workers’ compensation board denied the claim on the ground that the injury did not arise out of her employment because (1) she was not exposed to the risk by virtue of her employment, but encountered the same risk anytime she stepped outside the door of her home and (2) because the risk arose from her home environment, which was outside of the employer’s control. The appellate court found that the employer’s lack of control over the conditions of the workers premises was not material. While the employer might not have had control over the worker’s dog, it had control over whether the worker worked away from the employer’s premises. The moral of the story being that once the home premises become the work premises, the hazards of the home premises encountered in connection with the performance of work become also hazards of the employment. In re Sandberg, 243 Ore. App. 342, 260 P.3d 495 (Or. Ct. App. June 1, 2011).
The trend toward telecommuting seems likely to continue for both environmental and efficiency reasons. See Max Chafkin, “Telecommuting by the Numbers”, Inc. Online (April 1, 2010) (cite online at http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/telecommuting-by-the-numbers.html, accessed Feb. 3, 2012) (describing the substantial efficiency and environmental benefits of telecommuting); Agence-France Presse, “As Fuel Surges, Telecommuting Grows in U.S.” (June 1, 2008) (cite online at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGlg2C-bVbf2t_XQjE4BjIdG2mxw, accessed Feb. 3, 2012) (noting that some 48% of employers offer telework at least once per week and that 40% of IBM’s global workforce have an option to work from a remote location). So, if the Oregon case represents the future of worker compensation law for the increasing numbers of employees working either occasionally or full-time from home, how should the Company’s loss-prevention department address these issues proactively? Should man’s best friend be banned from the home workplace? Should loss-prevention personnel conduct an initial and periodic audit of home work premises for hazards? What effect will the increased percentage of an employer’s work-force telecommuting have on insurance premiums? See The Hartford Loss Control Department, “Loss Control TIPS”, TIPS S 520.375 (2002) (online at http://www.thehartford.com/corporate/losscontrol/SBA/TIPS/520-375.pdf, accessed Feb. 3, 2012) (addressing potential concerns of telecommuting, including planning for potential workers compensation issues).
The times, they are a-changin’.
Please be sure to visit our website at http://RobertBFitzpatrick.com
Enhancement of Fee Awards in New Jersey
To contact us Click HERE
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Purdue v. Kenny A., __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1662, 176 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2010), one would have thought that enhancements of the lodestar would come almost to a screeching halt and only be rarely awarded in fee-shifting litigation. Not so in New Jersey under state law.
On January 25, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its decision in two consolidated appeals. Walker v. Guiffre, Nos. A-72, A-100, Sept. Term 2010, 066969, 067267, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 15 (Jan. 25, 2012). Walker was consolidated on appeal from two lower court decisions, Walker v. Giuffre, 2 A.3d 1165 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) and Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza, No. A-6083-08T1, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2664 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 5, 2010).
In Walker, a consumer protection case, the trial court awarded walker $654.50 in total damages, and a lodestar fee of $68,450. The trial court then enhanced the lodestar fee by 45% for a total fee award of $99,252.50. The intermediate New Jersey Appeals Court reversed the 45% contingency enhancement, relying upon Purdue. 2 A.3d 1165 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).
In Humphries, a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement which required modifications to the shopping center’s parking area and awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in damages. The Plaintiff, as a “prevailing party”, then sought an award of legal fees. The trial court awarded a lodestar fee with a 20% contingency enhancement, rejecting plaintiff’s request for a 50% contingency enhancement. Again, the intermediate Appeals Court reversed, holding that Purdue permits contingency enhancements only in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Humphries, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2664 at *25.
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rejected the intermediate appellate court’s reliance on Purdue, opining that its 1995 decision in Rendine v. Pantzer, 661 A.2d 1202 (N.J. 1995) had rejected the 1992 decision of the United States Supreme Court in City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992), in which the Court had addressed the propriety of contingency enhancements. The New Jersey Supreme Court further explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Purdue was merely a reaffirmation of Dague, and “the opinion made it abundantly clear that, for federal fee-shifting purposes, this issue had been settled in Dague…Simply put, the Court’s decision in Purdue reiterates the framework that applies to fee awards in federal courts arising from federal statutes and does not represent any new approach on the subject.” In short, New Jersey considered and rejected the “rare circumstance” rule respecting contingency fee enhancements in Rendine, and merely reaffirmed that in Walker.
The New Jersey Supreme Court went on to state that it “fixed the ordinary range for a contingency enhancement as being between five and fifty percent and we also identified the typical range as being between twenty and thirty-five percent of the lodestar.” The New Jersey Supreme Court’s “rare and exceptional case” rule is a 100% enhancement. Further, it did preclude an award of a contingency enhancement in excess of 100%.
The Court sent Walker back to the trial court for further proceedings, and then proceeded to reverse the trial court’s twenty-percent fee-enhancement, and instead found that “the requested fifty percent was eminently reasonable…”
The decision in the consolidated cases will undoubtedly be a catalyst to plaintiff’s counsel arguing that the rationale of Rendine and Walker ought to be applied to their state anti-discrimination statute.
Please be sure to visit our website at http://RobertBFitzpatrick.com
Even Though Not Yet Eligible for FMLA Leave, Employee Is Protected
To contact us Click HERE
In Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., No. 10-14723, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 492, (11th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012), the Court was confronted with the question left open by Walker v. Elmore Cnty., Bd. of Educ., 379 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2004), that is whether the FMLA protects a pre-eligibility request for post-eligibility maternity leave. The 11th Circuit, Judge Fay writing for the panel, held that the pregnant employee in such circumstances pled both a FMLA interference and a FMLA retaliation claim.
First, with respect to Pereda’s FMLA interference claim, the Court held that “because the statute contemplates notice of leave in advance of becoming eligible, i.e., giving birth to a child, the FMLA regulatory scheme must necessarily protect pre-eligible employees, such as Pereda, who put their employers on notice of a post-eligibility leave request.” Pereda, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 492 at *14. Further, the Court stated: “an expectant mother who is along in her pregnancy cannot hide that, in due time, she will give birth to a child. By the very nature of the fact that a full-term pregnancy takes nine months to complete, not affording pre-eligible expecting parents any protection would leave them exposed to adverse action by the employer.” Id. at *14-*15. The Court thus concluded that a pre-eligible employee has a cause of action if an employer terminates her in order to avoid having to accommodate that employee with rightful FMLA leave rights once that employee becomes eligible.
Finally, with respect to Pereda’s FMLA retaliation claim, the Court held that she could also state a cause of action for FMLA retaliation, holding “that a pre-eligible request for post-eligible leave is protected activity because the FMLA aims to support both employees in the process of exercising their FMLA rights and employers in planning for the absence of employees on FMLA leave.” See also Skrjanc v. Great Lakes Power Serv. Co., 272 F.3d 309, 314 (6th Cir. 2001) ("The right to actually take [FMLA] leave . . . includes the right to declare an intention to take such leave in the future."); Beffert v. Penn. Dept. of Public Welfare, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6681 (E.D. Pa. April 18, 2005) (holding a pregnant employee who provided notice of post-eligible FMLA leave could bring a retaliation claim even though she was not eligible at the time of her request); Reynolds v. Inter-Indust. Conf. on Auto Collision Repair, 594 F. Supp. 2d 925, 928 (finding an employer "has no legitimate interest in being able to terminate an eleventh month-employee for simply requesting foreseeable leave for which he is eligible" especially when the same decision would be prohibited a month later); Walker v. Elmore Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 223 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1260 (finding it "absurd" to interpret the FMLA to allow a employer to retaliate against an employee who gives pre-eligible notice of post-eligible leave). The Court concluded by stating: “Our decision today simply means that pre-eligible discussion of post-eligible FMLA leave is protected activity under the FMLA.”
Please be sure to visit our website at http://RobertBFitzpatrick.com
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)