DOCSLIB.ORG

Roadblocks to Re-Entry: Employment Obstacles Following Conviction and a Guide to Ease the Transition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Roadblocks to Re-Entry: Employment Obstacles Following Conviction and a Guide to Ease the Transition STATE BAR OF ARIZONA CONVENTION Thursday, June 12 T17 8:45 a.m. - Noon 2 014 Roadblocks to Re-entry: Employment Obstacles Following Conviction and a Guide to Ease the Transition Arizonans convicted of crimes often face obstacles in re-entering the community after completing the terms of their sentences and paying their debts to society. These obstacles, including barriers to employment and self-sufficiency, create roadblocks that can lead to recidivism. Come join a talented and diverse faculty for a discussion on how to overcome these barriers, to set aside criminal records, restore civil rights, and in the process reduce recidivism. PRESENTED BY: Legal Services Committee CHAIRS: • Lori MacLeod, Petti and Briones PLLC • Gary Restaino, U.S. Attorney’s Office FACULTY: • David Euchner, Pima County Public Defender’s Office • Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission • Hon. Charles Pyle, United States Magistrate Judge • Professor Andy Silverman, Director of Clinical Program, University of Arizona • Marie Sullivan, President & CEO, Arizona Women’s Employment & Education, Inc. • Wynkiesha McKnight, Maricopa County Adult Probation Department 3CLE Credit Hours © All Rights Reserved. The opinions of the faculty expressed in their written materials and oral presentations are not necessarily those of the State Bar of Arizona. Roadblocks to Re-entry Materials 1. Panel Bios 2. “Court and Community Collaboration to Reduce Recidivism” (Judge Pyle) 3. State v. Bernini, 310 P. 3d 46 (Ariz. App. 2013) 4. State v. Hall, -- P. 3d --, 2014 WL 1133538 (Ariz. App. 2014) 5. Selected Statutes: A.R.S. §§ 13-905, 906, 907, 912 and 4051 6. Powerpoint: “Reality or Myth: The Plight of Ex-Offenders” (Prof. Silverman) 7. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions (No. 915.002) 8. National Employment Law Project Monograph: “The Case for Reforming Criminal Background Checks for Employment” 9. National Employment Law Project Resource Guide: “Ban the Box” Sponsored by the Legal Services Committee June 12, 2014 PANEL BIOGRAPHIES BIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES R. PYLE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court - District of Arizona, Tucson Division 405 West Congress Street - Suite 5660 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Judge Pyle graduated from Stanford University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1970 and received his law degree from the University of Arizona College of Law in 1973. For ten years, beginning in 1977 through 1987, Judge Pyle was a staff attorney with Southern Arizona Legal Aid specializing in consumer and indigent health care. In 1987, Judge Pyle then worked in the Civil Division of the Pima County Attorney’s Office, working extensively with the Pima County Health Department in their response to the AIDS crisis. From 1989 to 2001, Judge Pyle supervised the Tucson Office of the Liability Management Section of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. During that time, he frequently wrote and lectured on the use of ADR, particularly mediation, to resolve civil disputes. Judge Pyle was sworn in as a United States Magistrate Judge on June 28, 2001 for the United States District Court, District of Arizona, Tucson Division. Biography of Andy Silverman Andy Silverman is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona. Even though he is retired, he still directs the Civil Rights Restoration Clinic and teaches Immigration Law at the law school where he has taught for 44 years. The Civil Rights Restoration Clinic was started eight years ago by Professor Silverman and Jonathan Rothschild, a lawyer who is now mayor of Tucson. Professor Silverman is also involved with the Arizona Justice Project where he has worked with volunteer lawyers and law students in representing Arizona inmates in challenging their convictions and sentences and applying for commutation before the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency. Biography Mary O’Neill is the Regional Attorney for the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC, which includes Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. She currently manages a legal staff of approximately 30 employees, litigates employment discrimination cases in federal court in the five states Mary Jo has responsibility for, advising her enforcement colleagues, and is a frequent trainer/speaker for the EEOC, local and national bar associations, employer groups, and community organizations. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude from the University of Arizona with a B.A. in political science and women’s studies in 1976. Following graduation cum laude from the University of Arizona law school in 1979, Mary Jo clerked for an appellate judge for a year and then represented indigent Native Americans individually and in groups at the Urban Indian Law Project, first as a Reginald Heber Fellow. Mary Jo is the past chair of the labor section of the Arizona State Bar Association and is very active in the Arizona NELA chapter. She is also the current President of the Morris Institute for Justice, a non-profit legal organization which advocates for poor Arizonans in the legislature, within governmental organizations, and in court. In 1986, Mary Jo began working at the EEOC as a trial attorney, then as a supervisory trial attorney, until she was selected as the Regional Attorney in 2002. While at the EEOC, Mary Jo has litigated many cases, conducted jury trials, and has negotiated many complex and difficult nationwide settlements, including the global settlement of the EEOC’s cases filed against Wal-Mart under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the nationwide gender promotion case against Outback. Mary Jo has also been selected to be a frequent trainer for lawyers and OGC staff on skills and substantive subjects, including discovery training, trial skills, deposition skills, new lawyer training and negotiation training. Biography of David Euchner David Euchner is the appellate unit supervisor of the Pima County Public Defender's Office and the 2014 President of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. He has argued and won cases before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Supreme Court, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and he is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. He graduated from Rutgers College, Rutgers University in 1994 with a Bachelor of Arts in Classics, and he received his Juris Doctor from Rutgers University School of Law in Camden in 1999. Upon joining the Public Defender's Office in 2005, Dave began in the felony trial unit, and he transferred to the appellate unit in 2007. His caseload predominantly consists of cases involving convictions for first-degree murder and includes capital cases. In addition to direct appeals, he manages post-conviction collateral challenges (Rule 32's) involving complex and evolving scientific evidence, such as firearms identification, "shaken baby syndrome," DNA, insanity and mental health defenses, etc. Dave has served on the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice Board since 2009. Prior to his election as President-Elect in 2013, he was elected Secretary in 2011 and 2012 and appointed to chair the amicus/rules committee between 2011 and 2013. He has submitted amicus briefs in all state and federal courts on a variety of issues affecting the rights of the criminally accused and the practice of criminal defense in Arizona. Dave has served on the State Bar's Criminal Jury Instructions Committee since 2010. He has given over twenty presentations on a variety of topics, including technological advances and the law, updates in Arizona case law, and introductory and advanced topics in appellate advocacy. Including amicus cases, he has participated in more than twenty oral arguments in appellate courts and has over thirty published opinions. -Bio: Marie A. Sullivan Marie Sullivan has been involved in education, women and family issues, and community development for over 40 years. She has been the President and CEO of Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc., (AWEE), a non-profit organization dedicated to changing people’s lives through the dignity of work, since 1997. Prior to her work at AWEE, Marie worked in public policy development and advocacy in the social service and faith based sector. Currently, Marie is a member of the Maricopa County Workforce Connection Board, chairs the Board of Directors for Arizona Saves, serves as a board member for the Organization of Nonprofits (ONE), is a member of the Governance and Nominating Committee for the Catholic Community Foundation and participates as a member of the Phoenix College President’s Advisory Council and the ASU Community Leadership Council. Her other memberships include the Arizona Town Hall, Valley Leadership, and the Association of Fundraising Professionals. Marie has been awarded the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce’s prestigious ATHENA Award, given to a woman acknowledged for her excellence in business, her community service and involvement, and her professional mentorship of women. She was the named Public Service Leader of the Year, Tribute to Women Award, by the YWCA and was named Goodman’s Good Guy Award winner as the outstanding nonprofit leader in the Metropolitan Phoenix area. For eight years Marie served as a publicly elected member of the Madison Elementary School District Governing Board, where she served both as President and Clerk of the Board. She represented her congressional district to the National School Board Association’s Federal Relations Network for over five years during that time. She is an alumna of Leadership America where she participated with a select group of women from throughout the United States to discuss and give leadership to issues affecting the American landscape, and an alumna of the Bank of America’s Neighborhood Excellence Initiative Executive Training program. Marie is also involved with a number of organizations focused on political equity and achievement for women, and workforce development. Marie is married and the mother of two young adults.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nysba Summer 2013 | Vol
    NYSBA SUMMER 2013 | VOL. 38 | NO. 2 Labor and Employment Law Journal A publication of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the New York State Bar Association DDisloyalisloyal EEmployeesmployees UUndernder tthehe CComputeromputer FFraudraud aandnd AAbusebuse AActct AAlsolso IInsidenside • TThehe IImpactmpact ooff ee-Discovery-Discovery oonn IIndividualndividual EEmploymentmployment CCasesases • GGreaterreater GGovernmentovernment LLiabilityiability fforor NNegligentegligent HHiringiring • IInternalnternal IInvestigationsnvestigations iinn OOverseasverseas WWorkplacesorkplaces Your key to professional success… A wealth of practical resources at www.nysba.org • Downloadable Forms organized into common practice areas The Labor and Employment Law • Free legal research from Journal is also available online Loislaw.com • Comprehensive practice management tools • Forums/listserves for Sections and Committees • Ethics Opinions from 1964 – present • NYSBA Reports – the substantive work of the Association • Legislative information with timely news feeds • Online career services for job seekers and employers • Learn more about the Go to www.nysba.org/LaborJournal Lawyers Assistance Program to access: at www.nysba.org/lap • Past Issues (2000-present) of the Labor and Employment Law Journal* • Labor and Employment Law Journal Searchable The practical tools you Index (2000-present) need. The resources you • Searchable articles from the Labor and demand. Available right Employment Law Journal that include links to now. cites and statutes. This service
    [Show full text]
  • GAHS Personnel Policy
    GREYHILLS ACADEMY H I G H SCH OOL PERSONNEL POLICIES Greyhills Academy High School ARTICLE 1 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Table of Contents SECTION 1.0 ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION 1.01 Mission Statement. 5 1.02 Philosophy 5 1.03 Value Statement 5 1.04 Services Provided 5 1.05 School History 5 1.06 Organizational Structure. 6 1.07 Enactment And Amendment 6 1.08 Jurisdiction 6 SECTION 2.0 EMPLOYMENT 2.01 Objective 7 2.02 Employment Policy 7 2.03 Immigration Law Compliance 8 2.04 Anti-Nepotism 8 2.05 Immigration Law Compliance 8 2.06 Anti-Nepotism 8 2.07 Conflict Of Interest 8 2.08 Health Standards 10 2.09 Employee Relations 10 2.10 Chain Of Command 10 2.11 Applications For Employment 10 2.12 Employment Practices 10 2.13 Advertisement of Vacant Position(s) 10 2.14 Interview Committee 10 2.15 Recruitement 10 2.16 Chain Of Command 11 2.17 Superintendents Recommendation Option 11 2.18 Final Approval 12 2.19 Emergency Appointment 12 2.20 Substitute or Intermittent Professional Employees/Hiring 12 2.21 Prerequisites to Commencement of Employment 13 2.22 General Background, Fingerprint Checks and Adjudication 13 2.23 Commencement of Employment and Post-Employment Procedure 18 2.24 Employment Offer 18 2.25 New Employee Orientation 20 2.26 Required Certifications, Trainings and Medical Examination 20 SECTION 3.0 EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND RECORDS 3.01 Employment Categories 22 3.02 Probationary Period 23 3.03 Bridging Of Service 23 3.04 Employment Reference Checks 24 3.05 Personnel Record Updates 24 3.06 Access To Personnel Files 24 3.07 Non-Disclosure
    [Show full text]
  • The Limited Viability of Negligent Supervision, Retention, Hiring, And
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 24 | Issue 3 Article 6 1998 The Limited Viability of Negligent Supervision, Retention, Hiring, and Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Employment Discrimination Cases in Minnesota Timothy P. Glynn Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Glynn, Timothy P. (1998) "The Limited Viability of Negligent Supervision, Retention, Hiring, and Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Employment Discrimination Cases in Minnesota," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 24: Iss. 3, Article 6. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol24/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Glynn: The Limited Viability of Negligent Supervision, Retention, Hiring THE LIMITED VIABILITY OF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, RETENTION, HIRING, AND INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES IN MINNESOTA Timothy P. Glynnt I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 581 II. THE NEGLIGENCE THEORIES .................................................. 584 A. Negligent Supervision ........................................................ 585 1. Respondeat Superior ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Negligent Hiring Liability: the Case of Mary Foley by Charles S
    Avoiding Negligent Hiring Liability: The Case of Mary Foley by Charles S. White, Ph.D. and Lawrence S. Kleiman, Ph.D. Dr. Charles S. White and Dr. Larry Kleiman are both Professors of Management in the School of Business at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Each has written numerous articles on the topic of personnel management. Dr. Kleiman has also authored a leading textbook on the subject. Consider the case of poor Mary Foley.1 Mary started a small temporary service company 22 years ago at the age of 36. Each year her business grew as well as her profits. Mary planned to sell her business in two years and retire. Her projection was that she would receive enough for the firm to allow her to have a comfortable retirement complete with travel and a membership in the cityÕs best country club. Mary 's plans now are on hold. Her firm is being sued for much more than her insurance coverage. If she loses the lawsuit, she will likely lose the business. Where did she go wrong? It started simply enough - applicants would fill out an application form and let Mary know what type of temporary work they were interested in. She had employees ranging from part-time college students and housewives needing extra money through ex- military policemen and computer programmers seeking more skilled positions. Mary would ensure that the application forms were filled out completely and then would interview the person to determine what type of work they would be interested in doing. Mary 's downfall occurred last year when she assigned a retired military man to a position as a night watchman at a warehouse.
    [Show full text]
  • Suitability V. Security
    Taking Adverse Actions Based on Suitability or Security Issues Objectives • Discuss the various purposes for personnel investigations – HSPD-12 (PIV access) – Suitability/Fitness (character and conduct) – National Security/Access to classified information • Outline agency authorities and options for adjudication and the procedural requirements for action when issues arise • Discuss reciprocity policies and guidance 2 Purposes of Personnel Investigations • Requirement for access to Federal facilities and logical systems Eligibility for a Personal Identification Verification (PIV) card as mandated by HSPD-12 • Need to evaluate character and conduct of Government workers – Suitability determinations for positions covered by 5 CFR 731 – Continuous evaluation through reinvestigation of individuals in positions of public trust as required by E.O. 13488 3 Purposes of Personnel Investigations Need to evaluate character and conduct of Government workers – Eligibility and qualifications for excepted service or other positions not covered by 5 CFR 731 or National Security requirements – Fitness determinations for contractor employment per contractual requirements 4 Purposes of Personnel Investigations Protection of National Security – Eligibility for a National Security position under E.O. 10450 – Eligibility for a clearance to access classified information under E.O. 12968 – Continuous evaluation through reinvestigation of individuals holding clearances under E.O. 12968 5 PIV Card Requirements (Resulting from HSPD-12) • Mandatory, Governmentwide
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW BUSINESS LAW Administrative Law Desk Reference ABCs of the UCC Administrative Law Treatise Anti-Trust Law Handbook Federal Administrative Practice Basic Legal Transactions Understanding Administrative Law Blue Sky Practice Buy-Sell Agreement Handbook ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Commercial Law & Practice Guide ADR Practice Guide & Forms Corporate Minutes Book Collaborative Law Delaware Corporation Laws & UCC Annotated Mediate: Don’t Litigate Family Limited Partnership Deskbook Mediating Legal Disputes Federal Banking Laws & Regulations Mediation: Law, Policy & Practice Fletcher’s Cyclopedia of Corporations Using Divorce Mediation Frequently Asked Anti-Trust Questions How To Form a Nonprofit Corporation AMERICAN INDIAN LAW Law of Associations American Indian Law Law of Sales Under the UCC American Indian Law Review Legal Guide for Starting/Running a Small Business Cherokee Nation Code Annotated Lender Liability Law & Litigation Gaming Law: Cases & Materials Limited Liability Company Handbook Indian Territory Reports McQuillin Municipal Corporations Handbook of Federal Indian Law Modern Corporation Checklists Landmark Indian Law Cases Modern UCC Litigation Forms Muscogee (Creek) Nation Code O’Neal’s Close Corporations O’Neal’s Oppression of Minority Shareholders AMERICAN LAW REPORTS: ALL Organizing Corporate & Business Enterprises Partnership Book AUTOMOBILE LAW Partnership Law & Practice Apprehending & Prosecuting the Drunk Driver Recent UCC Developments Automobile Law & Practice Revised Uniform Partnership Act Beat
    [Show full text]
  • The Tort of Negligence in Employment Hiring, Supervision and Retention
    American Journal of Business and Society Vol. 1, No. 4, 2016, pp. 205-222 http://www.aiscience.org/journal/ajbs The Tort of Negligence in Employment Hiring, Supervision and Retention Frank J. Cavico, Bahaudin G. Mujtaba *, Marissa Samuel, Stephen Muffler Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University, Florida, USA Abstract This article examines the common law tort of negligence in the employment sector and specifically in the context of hiring, supervising, and retaining employees. The tort, or civil wrong, of negligence can have serious consequences in employment. We differentiate the direct liability of the employer for its own negligence from the doctrine of respondeat superior which deals with the vicarious or imputed liability of the employer. A common law tort such as negligence can be preempted by a statute – federal or state – and especially in the context herein by superseding federal or state civil rights statutes or state Workers’ Compensation statutes. Based on the analysis and discussion of implications the authors provide several recommendations to help managers avoid liability for the tort or negligent hiring and/or negligent supervision and retention. First, general recommendations are made; and then recommendations specific to negligent hiring and negligent supervision/retention are supplied. The article ends with a brief summary and conclusion. Keywords Negligent Hiring, Tort, Liability Tort of Negligence, Workers’ Compensation Received: July 23, 2016 / Accepted: August 22, 2016 / Published online: September 3, 2016 @ 2016 The Authors. Published by American Institute of Science. This Open Access article is under the CC BY license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ stating the elements of each, and next providing recent case 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan V. Crete Carrier Corp., No
    Little Red Corvette, Baby You’re Much Too Fast Introductions: Beth Anne Lashuk (Jurca and Lashuk, LLC) Little Red Corvette, Baby You’re Much Too Fast Mehdi Arradizadeh (ATS INC.) June J. Essis (Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, LLP) Rebecca L. Burroughs (Ward Hocker Thornton, PLLC) Matthew D. Valauri (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP) Copy Here *Insert accident reconstruction video from Dropbox* Corvette pulled into road from this Southbound driveway to go south Left turn lane Yaw marks from Corvette AREA OF IMPACT (AOI) Copy Here Yaw marks from Corvette spinning counterclockwise Factual Background – Scenario A • Red Corvette and tractor trailer southbound on road with two lanes of traffic in each direction • Red Corvette makes a left hand turn into southbound lanes, accelerates, and loses control • The tractor trailer proceeding southbound collides with the front-end of the spun-out Red Corvette Other Relevant Facts – Scenario A • The Red Corvette driver was a retired 63 year old man with no dependents and no children • The Red Corvette driver is pronounced dead at the scene • Both drivers – no drugs/alcohol, no phone usage, no speeding • Tractor-trailer driver tried to change lanes to avoid collision • Allegations made that tractor-trailer driver was negligently hired, retained, supervised, and trained Legal Analysis – Comparative Negligence • Corvette driver makes a left hand turn into southbound lanes, accelerates, and loses control • Both drivers – no drugs/alcohol, no phone usage, no speeding • New Jersey; Pennsylvania, Connecticut; Ohio – “Modified” comparative negligence – plaintiff can recover where negligence is not 50%+ (N.J. § Stat. 2A:15-5.1; 42 Pa.C.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Personnel Policies & Procedures Manual
    G R E Y H I L L S A C A D E M Y H I G H S C H O O L ARTICLE I PERSONNEL POLICIES Board Approved: July 11, 2013 Greyhills Academy High School ARTICLE 1 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Table of Contents SECTION 1.0 ORGANIZATION DESCRIPTION 1.01 Mission Statement. 5 1.02 Philosophy 5 1.03 Value Statement 5 1.04 Services Provided 5 1.05 School History 5 1.06 Organizational Structure. 6 1.07 Enactment And Amendment 6 1.08 Jurisdiction 6 SECTION 2.0 EMPLOYMENT 2.01 Objective 7 2.02 Employment Policy 7 2.03 Immigration Law Compliance 8 2.04 Anti-Nepotism 8 2.05 Immigration Law Compliance 8 2.06 Anti-Nepotism 8 2.07 Conflict Of Interest 8 2.08 Health Standards 10 2.09 Employee Relations 10 2.10 Chain Of Command 10 2.11 Applications For Employment 10 2.12 Employment Practices 10 2.13 Advertisement of Vacant Position(s) 10 2.14 Interview Committee 10 2.15 Recruitement 10 2.16 Chain Of Command 11 2.17 Superintendents Recommendation Option 11 2.18 Final Approval 12 2.19 Emergency Appointment 12 2.20 Substitute or Intermittent Professional Employees/Hiring 12 2.21 Prerequisites to Commencement of Employment 13 2.22 General Background, Fingerprint Checks and Adjudication 13 2.23 Commencement of Employment and Post-Employment Procedure 18 2.24 Employment Offer 18 2.25 New Employee Orientation 20 2.26 Required Certifications, Trainings and Medical Examination 20 SECTION 3.0 EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND RECORDS 3.01 Employment Categories 22 3.02 Probationary Period 23 3.03 Bridging Of Service 23 3.04 Employment Reference Checks 24 3.05 Personnel Record Updates
    [Show full text]
  • Inventorying Employment Restrictions Task Force Final Report
    State of Illinois Pat Quinn, Governor Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Jack Cutrone INVENTORYING EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT Submitted to the Illinois Office of the Governor and the Illinois General Assembly June 28, 2013 Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Inventorying Employment Restrictions Task Force Final Report Acknowledgements The Task Force would like to acknowledge the efforts and participation of the many individuals and organizations who contributed valuable input and guidance in its work. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Mark Myrent, Director of Research Idetta Phillips, Project Manager Christine Devitt Westley, Senior Research Analyst Junaid Afeef, Associate General Counsel Simeon Kim, Associate General Counsel Shamsideen Balogun, Research Analyst Nadia Shamsi, Legal Intern Daniel Lawrence, Research Intern Also State Sen. Tom Johnson (retired); Tanisha Wilborn, US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Tom Grippando; Anthony Lowry, Safer Foundation; Todd Belcore, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Michelle Jackson, CMS; John Lagattuta and Tiffany Kay, IDFPR; Tammi Kestel, ISP; Christina Griffin and Debbie Hensey, CMS; Antoinette Golden, IDES; Dr. Kisha Hart; Rukhaya Alikhan, Office of the Governor; Victor Gaskins and Maurice Hayes, St. Leonard’s Ministries; Geraldine Smith and Dolphin Morris, Life Builders United; Paul McKinley, Voice of the Ex-Offender; Ms. Evelyn Johnson, A New Beginning Start Now. Inventorying Employment Restrictions Task Force
    [Show full text]
  • Negligence Clause in Employment Contract
    Negligence Clause In Employment Contract Quincey sauts effortlessly if holies Sander gilds or overachieve. Alessandro is probable and inveigh right while ctenoid Rickard collogued and jaculates. Tracey usually strengthens correspondently or gorged pugnaciously when aulic Constantin carbonized odiously and empirically. You have the moment when they function on these also a similar circumstances, an agreement can produce tortuous drafting an employee agrees that clause in You contract clauses do this negligence doctrine applied to contracts. If an employee has this company documents, proprietary information, thumb drivers, or confuse other types of define, this substance also considered theft. You in contracts appear to clause may require fewer steps from negligent party will offer to consider whether or clauses? Note, underneath, that losses which were learn the contemplation of the parties will soon too quiet to be recoverable in nature event. You can be sued for any damage you caused. You are browsing a metered article in Incognito Mode. Defense obligation or company, party has the component parts or possession or contract clause in negligence. In coinmach deal team to. 1993 no writ upholding limitations of liability clauses even when a wine is based. Many liability in contract shielded him or losses. We and not field any additional emails regarding this. As with rule, most states that slay them strictly construe them pending the beneficiary of some clause. First contract in contracts, negligent in a contracting parties before continuing to others may require police in. Client may offset any amount payable hereunder against any payments due from the Independent Contractor pursuant to any other written agreement or arrangement.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:04-Cv-02619-L Document 192 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 32 Pageid 1651
    Case 3:04-cv-02619-L Document 192 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 32 PageID 1651 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GRETA CRAWFORD, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2619-L § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and § DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND § SECURITY, § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court are Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 8, 2005; Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Seal Appendix to Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment: Appendix Documents 14 and 33, filed November 28, 2005; Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed May 5, 2006; and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial, filed July 17, 2006. After careful consideration of the motions, responses, reply, appendices, record and applicable law, the court grants Federal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Appendix to Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment: Appendix Documents 14 and 33; denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and denies as moot Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Greta Crawford (“Crawford” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action against the United States of America (“United States”) and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) (collectively “Defendants”) on December 9, 2004. Crawford alleges, among other things, due Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1 Case 3:04-cv-02619-L Document 192 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 32 PageID 1652 process and equal protection violations, negligence, assault, harassment, conspiracy, retaliation and discrimination.
    [Show full text]