1-22-09 - 11:50:00 ← Law is protecting property...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 22/01/2009 11:50:00 ← Law is protecting property, maintaining order, safety ← • Laws come from courts(interpreting law), legislature(congress, state laws), common law(court made law), constitution • Enforced by police (criminal), Courts (cases), executive( irs, fbi), sue • Crimial vs. civil law – standard of proof o Civil-the person rying to prove the case has to show mor likely than not the other person has violated the law. Easier to prove. Penalties – monetary, Parties- can be a private person o Criminal- beyond reasonable doubt to find someone guility has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Penalties- incarceration, Parties- gov brings cases. Always have access to jury trial • EEO- title 7, age, gender, diability, marital status, national origin, religion, minimum wage, OSHA (workplace safety), certain medical leaves (FMLA), at will right ( quit when I want), contract, pension, NLRA ← ← 1896 Case- laws weren’t being enforced well, knights of labor, unions seen as criminal conspiriacy but not using civil law to restict unions. State court of mass. No major federal labor employment laws, states are litigated in these issues, it’s the supreme judical court, the plaintiff(brining case to court) is the employer (vegalon), defendents(employees represented by guntner), the workers wanted higher wages by doing a 2 man patrol outside factory on and off intimidation etc. picket. The plaintiff wantes injuection to cease the patrolling and higher new workers. injunction (court order to keep party from doing something). Junction pente lita means pending litigation which iscalled preliminary injection the case hasn’t been heard yet. The first injunction – cannot interfere with platifs busness. Case “by patrolling,….or contniing in it” • “by obstructing or interfering with such persons or any others in entering or leaving the plaintiffs said premises. • By intimidating, by thrats.. persons who ow are or here after be in the employment of plaintiff or desitous of entering the same etc. o Doesn’t require there to be a threat of force • “by any scheme or conspritacy amoung themselves or with others etc…end with contining there in • homes injuction he gets rid of the broad one and says he is just : o defendents are enjoinged from intimidating by threats express or implied of physical carm to body or property any person who may be desirous of entering into the employment of the plaintiff so fasr as to prevent him from entering the same much less broad, just about physical harm, not talking about...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/05/2009 for the course ILR 2050 taught by Professor Larrykatz during the Spring '09 term at Cornell.

Page1 / 30

1-22-09 - 11:50:00 ← Law is protecting property...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online