Against The Law !FULL!
The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is concerned that national origin discrimination may go unreported in the United States because victims of discrimination do not know their legal rights, or may be afraid to complain to the government. To address this problem, the Civil Rights Division has established a National Origin Working Group to help citizens and immigrants better understand and exercise their legal rights. If you think you, or someone you know, has been discriminated against because of national origin and want to learn more about exercising your legal rights, you should read this brochure.
Against the Law
This example may be a violation of federal laws that prohibit discrimination because of disability as well as laws that prohibit discrimination because of national origin. If you believe you have been discriminated against because you have a disability you may contact the Disability Rights Section at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TTY). You may also write to:
* A transit worker's supervisor makes frequent racial epithets against the worker because his family is from Iran. Last week, the boss put up a fake sign on the bulletin board telling everyone not to trust the worker because he is a terrorist.
These examples may be violations of the law that prohibits discrimination against an employee or job applicant because of his or her national origin. This means an employer cannot discipline, harass, fire, refuse to hire or promote a person because of his or her national origin.
These examples may be violations of federal laws that prohibit discrimination because of national origin, race or color by recipients of federal funds. If you believe you have been discriminated against by a state or local government agency or an organization that receives funds from the federal government, you may file a complaint with the Division's Coordination and Review Section at (888) 848-5306. You may also write to:
If you believe that you have been discriminated against in voting or denied assistance in casting your ballot, you may contact the Division's Voting Section at (800) 253-3931. You may also write to:
You are a family member of a national of a European Union (EU) or European Economic Area (EEA) country or Switzerland. Your own nationality is not that of one of those countries. In the Netherlands you will be living together with your partner or another family member. You have to apply for verification against EU law. On this page you will find out how to apply and what documents you need.
Will you be living with a Dutch national? In that case, you are usually not able to apply for verification against EU law. EU law does not automatically apply to Dutch nationals. Read when EU law applies to Dutch nationals and their family members.
You are a family member of a Union citizen. A Union citizen is a person who is a national of an EU/EEA country or Switzerland. You are not a Union citizen yourself. However, as a family member of a Union citizen, EU law often applies to you. You can apply for verification against EU law to demonstrate that EU law is applicable to you.
You apply for the verification against EU law from the Netherlands. So you have to travel to the Netherlands first. Does your nationality require for you to have a visa? Then you first have to apply for a facilitation visa at the Dutch embassy of consulate. Are you not in the Netherlands when your application is granted? Then you will not receive a residence document.
You apply for the verification against EU law from the Netherlands. So you have to travel to the Netherlands first. Are you not in the Netherlands when your application is granted? Then you will not receive a residence document.
The IND has 6 months to decide on your application for verification against EU law. This period is called the decision period. It is specified by law. You will receive a letter stating the date by which the IND will decide on the application.
If the State Bar decides to file charges against the lawyer, the case will go to the independent State Bar Court and will become public, with notice on the attorney's online profile. A judge can dismiss the case, issue a reproval, or recommend suspension or disbarment.The California Supreme Court has the final say in all discipline cases involving suspension or disbarment.
If you lost money or property because a lawyer did something dishonest, you may be able to recover it by filing an application with the Client Security Fund. But first you need to file a complaint against the attorney.
Cyberbullying hurts other people, and can change lives. Some of the actions taken when cyberbullying occurs can also be against the law. Cyberbullies can face jail time, have their devices taken away, and may even have to pay their victims.
Subsection (b) protects against retaliation for disclosing information, or because an employer believes an employee has disclosed information or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct a violation, where an employee reasonably believes that the information discloses a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.
707-712.6 Assault against a law enforcement officer in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of assault against a law enforcement officer in the second degree if the person recklessly causes bodily injury to a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of duty.
Act 66, Session Laws 2003, added this section, creating the misdemeanor offense of assault against a law enforcement officer in the second degree. The legislature expressed the intent that the term "law enforcement officer" includes, but is not limited to, police officers, sheriffs, sheriff deputies, department of land and natural resources enforcement officers, and investigators with the department of the attorney general. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 979.
But the dramatic events that led to this Act took place over ten years before and are at the heart of Against the Law, a powerful factual drama starring Daniel Mays and Mark Gatiss. Mays plays Peter Wildeblood, a thoughtful and private gay journalist whose lover, under pressure from the authorities, turned Queen's evidence against him in one of the most explosive court cases of the 1950s - the infamous Montagu Trial. Wildeblood and his friends, Lord Montagu and Michael Pitt-Rivers, were found guilty of homosexual offences and jailed. But the public thought the trial unfair and forced a reluctant government to set up a committee to investigate whether homosexuality should be legalised. The committee was led by Sir John Wolfenden. With his career in tatters and his private life painfully exposed, Peter Wildeblood began his sentence a broken man, but he emerged from Wormwood Scrubs a year later determined to do all he could to change the way these draconian laws against homosexuality impacted the lives of men like him. He was the only openly gay man to testify before the Wolfenden committee about the brutal reality of being gay in this country at that time. In 1957 the committee recommended that the laws be changed. It would take a further ten years before these recommendations became law.
Chinese authorities are reconsidering legal reforms they enacted in the 1980s and 1990s. These reforms had emphasized law, litigation, and courts as institutions for resolving civil grievances between citizens and administrative grievances against the state. But social stability concerns have led top leaders to question these earlier reforms. Central Party leaders now fault legal reforms for insufficiently responding to (or even generating) surging numbers of petitions and protests.
Stigma, harassment, and discrimination persist in public employment. This report provides evidence of discrimination against law enforcement and corrections officers based on sexual orientation and gender identity and assesses the impact of the discrimination on community policing.
Executive SummaryEmployment discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity is an ongoing and pervasive problem in law enforcement and corrections departments. Ninety-five documented cases of discrimination since 2000 show that this discrimination not only impacts LGBT officers, but those who are perceived to be LGBT, associate with LGBT officers or community members, or who have spoken up against such discrimination. In addition, such discrimination not only harms law enforcement and corrections officers but impedes effective community policing, in particular in the protection of and cooperation with the LGBT community. While a patchwork of state, local, and federal laws provides some protection against certain forms of discrimination, there is no nationwide federal law that comprehensively and consistently prohibits employment discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
This report updates a 2009 Williams Institute report on discrimination in public employment, which found that over 40 percent of the reported cases of discrimination occurred against law enforcement and corrections department personnel. This report reviews evidence of discrimination against police and corrections officers since 2000 as well as the current state of the law.
The one exception is for coal-tar hair dyes, which the law treats differently. Under the law, FDA cannot take action against a coal-tar hair dye for safety reasons as long as it has a special warning statement on the label and directions for a skin test. The caution statement reads as follows: 041b061a72