Module 5 Review Assignment

Module 5 Law Review Assignment

Question 1

The EEOC wins the case. The court found that Terrific cannot be exempted from reporting its racial composition since it is a public company with publicly reported financial statements and therefore has a duty to disclose any relevant information.

The court went on to find that Terrific’s argument that disclosure of the racial composition would cause “elements” to picket its factories was not persuasive because those elements were incapable of picketing without the numbers being revealed. The court also held that although Terrific claimed that disclosure would cause employees to become upset, this was immaterial because the employees knew they were being asked for their race anyway and could easily leave if they did not want to disclose their race or ethnicity.

Question 2

The result is that Sam has no right to object to the association’s holding a hearing. The state legislature has placed plumbers under the control of an association, which can hold hearings and impose discipline. Sam wants to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to be able to use his own knowledge of ethics to determine whether he has violated the plumbing code of ethics, but he also wants to have the power to sue for damages if he is found guilty. But this cannot be done, because the legislature has given exclusive jurisdiction in disciplinary matters over plumbers who work for a contractor, who are employees rather than independent contractors (this is why there can be no lawsuit against them).

Sam is a member of the State Plumbers’ Association. He pays dues and receives benefits from this organization. He also benefits from its publications and training programs, which are available only to members of the association. If Sam is not subject to discipline by the association, then it would seem that there are no grounds for denying him access to these benefits in order to avoid being disciplined by his own organization.

Question 3

(a) The president may lawfully remove all incumbent commissioners of federal agencies in order to install new appointees. The reason he can lawfully do this is that they are political appointees who have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, which means they are not subject to civil service laws.  He may also conduct interviews with candidates for agency posts to see if their regulatory philosophies align with his own. In short, a president is free to carry out his campaign pledges regardless of what Congress or courts might say about them.

(b) The president does have the authority to demand that all pending regulations be reviewed by him and redrafted if necessary. The president has the power to issue executive orders, but those orders cannot conflict with existing law or regulations issued by other executive branch officials. If a regulation conflicts with existing law, then there is no choice but to repeal it rather than impose new laws on citizens in violation of their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution

(c) The president can lawfully fire all incumbent commissioners of federal agencies in order to install new appointees. For instance, if he wanted to fire everyone at the Environmental Protection Agency and replace them with people who would be more enthusiastic about deregulation, he could do so.If the president wants to establish a new regulatory philosophy at the EPA, however, he should not fire existing commissioners until they are replaced by new ones who share his views.

 Question 4

The Constitutionality of these provisions was addressed in Donovan v Dewey, 452 US 594 (1981). In that instance, Dewey was the owner of a mine in Wisconsin, and he refused to let Department of Labor inspectors search the mine without a warrant to see if previously discovered safety breaches had been fixed. Four warrantless inspections each year are permitted by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977, but only three were carried out while Dewey worked at the mine because he objected to them.

Dewey claimed that his right against unreasonable search or seizure was violated by this provision since it allowed government agents without prior judicial approval to enter private property for purposes other than those

Question 5

The NRC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously. The record showed that the NRC did consider the possibility of water leakage into the storage facility, and it was clear that this possibility was remote. The court of appeals correctly held that, when considering whether to adopt an assumption, it is always appropriate to look at all substantial risks, even remote ones. The possibility of contamination by water leakage into the storage facility is not a significant risk for which there is no reasonable assurance; rather, it is a remote possibility for which there is no evidence or experience supporting a conclusion that such an occurrence would actually occur; as a result, even if one could make an airtight logical argument in support of the assertion that such an occurrence would actually occur, such argument would be unjustified in light of the fact that the possibility of contamination by water leakage into the storage facility is.