Wild Horse Round-Up in Nevada Essay Example for Free

Wild Horse Round-Up in Nevada Essay The rounding up wild horses and leading them to their new destination, howbeit, for the slaughter or sales, has created a rift of an US (i.e. particularly; citizens of Nevada) and THEM (i.e. Federal Government, BLM) mentality. The animal activist is citing cruelty to animals and stifling the â€Å"First Amendment, Freedom of the Press†, on the part of BLM. The following article was quoted from USA Today: [A federal roundup of wild horses in Nevada was scheduled to resume Thursday and to continue through this weekend despite nearly two dozen animal deaths since it began. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says three of the deaths were due to injury and 18 due to severe dehydration following a drought. Horse activist Laura Leigh, whose lawsuit put a temporary halt to the roundup July 14, blames the deaths on the BLM, which she says allowed the horses to become dehydrated and held the roundup during the hottest season of the year. This is foaling season, it could have been done earlier, it could have been done last fall, Leigh says. This is not following the mandate to manage and protect our horses. Its just wrong. She and other activists also complain that the BLM has blocked them from observing the roundups to control the flow of images and public opinion. The BLM will escort up to 20 members of the media and the public to observe roundup operation today and Saturday for the first time since the roundup began July 10. The BLM says the roundup of wild horses is a necessity because the mustang population is growing so fast that horses are running out of food and harming the native land and wildlife. Agency estimates show 38,000 mustangs and burros roam 10 Western states; half are in Nevada. Leigh and other activists say the agency is moving the animals to clear the way for livestock grazing and energy interests. Elliot Katz, founder of In Defense of Animals, which filed a separate lawsuit, says wild horses are a low priority nationally because they dont produce a profit. Theyre just in the way of corporations who have cattle interests or want to do mining, Katz says. Theres been a gradual continuing effort to get rid of them.] (Dorell, 7/29) BLM’s stands its ground by stating they are â€Å"required by law to balance the needs of multiple interests on public lands, including wild horses, wildlife, mining and livestock. Wild horses, which have few predators and double their population every four years, can damage habitat shared by endangered and threatened species such as the pygmy rabbit and the lahontan cutthroat trout, says Heather Emmons, a spokeswoman for the BLM in Nevada.† (Dorell, 7/29) One of the many law suits that have been filed comes out of New Mexico and has gone to the Supreme Court. KLEPPE v. NEW MEXICO, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)  426 U.S. 529 KLEPPE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. NEW MEXICO ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO No. 74-1488. Argued March 23, 1976 Decided June 17, 1976 The Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act (Act) was enacted to protect all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States from capture, branding, harassment, or death, to accomplish which they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. The Act provides that all such animals on the public lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service are committed to the jurisdiction of the respective Secretaries, who are directed to protect and manage [the animals] as components of the public lands . . . in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands, and if the animals stray from those lands onto privately owned land, the private landowners may inform federal officials, who shall arrange to have the animals removed. Appellees, the State of New Mexico, its Livestock Board and director, and the purchaser of three unbranded burros seized by the Board (pursuant to the New Mexico Estray Law) on federal lands and sold at public auction, and whose return to public lands had been  demanded by the BLM, brought this suit for injunctive relief and for a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional. A three-judge District Court held the Act unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Held: As applied to this case, the Act is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause of the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. Art. IV, 3, cl. 2. Pp. 535-547. (FindLaw, June) (a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are needful rules respecting the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees narrow reading that the provision [426 U.S. 529, 530] grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. Pp. 536-541. (FindLaw, June) (b) In arguing that the Act encroaches upon state sovereignty and that Congress can obtain exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the public lands in a State only by state consent (absent which it may not act contrary to state law), appellees have confused Congress derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, 8, cl. 17, with Congress powers under the Property Clause. Pp. 541-546. (FindLaw, June) (c) The question of the Acts permissible reach under the Property Clause over private lands to protect wild free-roaming horses and burros that have strayed from public land need not be, and is not, decided in the context of this case. Pp. 546-547. (FindLaw, June) A law suit filed and made it to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, Federal Circuit was initiated from a rancher family of Fallini who states in the following law suit the cost of the wild horses to them personally: FALLINI v. UNITED STATES Susan L. FALLINI, and Joseph B. Fallini, Jr., in each of the following capacities:  as an individual person and successor to the interest of Helen Fallini as sole heir of Helene Fallini, deceased, executor of the last will of Helene Fallini, and Trustee of the Helene Fallini Living Trust and the  Helene Fallini Living Trust as the sole distributee of the last Will of Helene Fallini, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-5110. June 08, 1995 Before MICHEL, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. William F. Schroeder, Vale, OR, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief was William A. Schroeder, of Boise, ID.Peter A. Appel, Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Lois J. Schiffer, Asst. Atty. Gen., John A. Bryson and Dorothy R. Burakreis, Attorneys.   Of counsel was Laura B. Brown, Office of the Sol., Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC. James L. Huffman, Dean and Professor of Law Director, Natural Resources Law Institute, Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College, of Portland, OR, was on the brief for amicus curiae, Water for Life, Inc. (FindLaw, June) In this Fifth Amendment â€Å"takings† case, the Fallinis, who are engaged in cattle ranching in Nevada, argue that the federal government has taken personal property from them without compensation.   The Fallinis contend that the government affected a â€Å"taki ng† by requiring them to provide water to wild horses living in the area in which the Fallinis conducted their ranching activities. The Court of Federal Claims ruled against the Fallinis, concluding on motion for summary judgment that they had no property right that was taken by governmental action.  Fallini v. United States, 31 Fed.Cl. 53 (1994).   We conclude that their complaint was not filed within the applicable statute of limitations period and that the complaint should be dismissed on that ground. (FindLaw, June) The suit alleges the wild horses are costing their family approximately $1 million between 1971 and 1991 for the watering of the animals which they have not been allowed by the BLM to fence off the watering areas in such a way to grant cattle access by deny horses from accessing the water supply. In conclusion of the law suit filed by the Fallinis family states as follows: What the Fallinis may challenge under the Fourth Amendment is what the government has done, not what the horses have done. The only governmental action that could constitute a compensable  taking in this case is the governments directive forbidding the Fallinis from shooing the horses away from the water that the Fallinis have produced at their developed water sources.   That governmental action cannot be regarded as recurring with every new drink taken by every wild horse, even though the consumption of water by the wild horses imposes a continuing economic burden on the Fallinis. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258, 101 S.Ct. 498, 504, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (proper focus, for statute of limitations purposes, â€Å"is upon the time of the [defendants] acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts became most painful†).   Because the Fallinis identify the enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act as the governmental action that prevented them from fencing the horses away from their water sources, and because they admit that they suffered injury from the date of enactment, their claim must be regarded as accruing long before they filed their present suit. (FindLaw, June) III Based on our analysis of the Fallinis takings claim, we conclude that their claim was time-barred.   We therefore vacate the judgment and remand this case to the Court of Federal Claims with instructions to dismiss the complaint as untimely. (FindLaw, June) Each party shall bear its own costs. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS BRYSON, Circuit Judge. (FindLaw, June) The round-up of the wild horses is complex with legitimate issues on all sides. I see four distinct (legitimate) sides in this fight. They is the BLM, the animal activist, the media, and the cattle ranchers. The BLM cites it has a legal responsibility to round them up for control of population and preservation of public lands, including wild horses, wildlife, mining and livestock. The animal activists cite cruelty on the method used by the BLM with the time of year the round-ups are conducted to how they are treated while in captivity. The Public News Media cites they are being denied the first amendment right to the â€Å"Freedom of the Press† by being restricted access during the round-ups. Lastly, there is the cattle rancher that is citing a Fourth Amendment violation by the seizure of the water without their permission. Somehow there needs to be a balance of the issue. In my  opinion, the Public News Media doesn’t have a say in the matter because they twist any issue for the selling of their news and that is why they are in the fight. The animal activist have no place in this matter either because they are not any different than the News Media. I see two main players that have a stake in the holdings. The BLM and the cattle ranchers. Those are the two entities that are directly affected by this ordeal. The BLM has to strike a delicate balance of their responsibilities to Federal and State Law and to accomplish this with disturbing anybody’s ZEN. The cattle ranchers are trying to make a living in an economy that is seeing less and less profit. References Dorell, O. (7/29/2010). Federal roundup of wild horses resumes in Nevada. Retrieved from http://http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-22-wild-horses_N.htm FindLaw. (June 08, 1995). United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit, FALLINI v. UNITED STATES. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1336480.html FindLaw. (June 17, 1976 Decided). U.S. Supreme Court, KLEPPE v. NEW MEXICO, 426 U.S. 529 (1976). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin-getcase.pl?court=usvol=426invol=529

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Essay -- Sex Discrimination

TABLE OF CONTENTS TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .1 Laws That Govern Sexual Harassment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 How It Affects The Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TYPES OF SEX DISCRIMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quid Pro Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Hostile Work Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 THE HIGH COST OF LITIGATION FOR EMPLOYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 TYPES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8 EMPLOYER?S RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 VII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CASES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 I. TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION There are many forms of discrimination, especially in the workplace. Before we get into the different types of discrimination, we need to define the word discriminate which is, "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs, rather than according to actual merit." Taken from the Unabridged Edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Like many people I was under the belief that to discriminate simply meant that y... ...ts Acts of 1964 (Internet) http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.html Whitehead, Roy Jr.; Spikes, Pam; Yelvington, Brenda. "Sexual Harassment In The Office." CPA Journal. Vol. 66 No. 2: pp.42-45, February 1996. Note: All periodicals were found through the Nexis/Lexis system in the Library. CASES CITED Ellison v. Brady, (1991) 924 F.2d 842 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Domino?s Pizza, Inc., 909 F.Supp. 1529 (M.D.Fla. 1995) Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993) Matthews v. Superior Court (Regents of University of California), (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 598. Mogilefski v. Superior Court (Silver Pictures), (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409. Neal v. Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, U.S.Dist. LEXIS, 11461, 11469, 11515 (D.D.C. 1995) Note: Cases cited were researched through the law library.

Business Law Enron/WorldCom Essay

1. Introduction The goal of a large number of criminal acts is to obtain as much as profit for the individual or group that carries out the act. Just like bribery or robbery, accounting scandals that shock telecommunications industry within the past two years, also have similar intention that is to make money to benefit a person or a group of people through illegal acts while disguising their illegal origin. Concerning the accounting scandals in Enron, in this paper, we will elaborate the story of Enron and World Com scandals discussing how the company’s situation relates to bankruptcy, insurance, and/or employment law. 2. Accounting Scandals Enron, Global-Crossing, and WorldCom recent cases have become a history in finance and telecommunication areas. The history tells us how fragile the monitoring process of the company’s financial system is. The situation leads to accountancy scandals that hurt investors, employees, and the industries. In many reports on Houston Chronicle, we can conclude that the case of Enron emerged as the company and its auditor cooked up the books to show bogus profits. This is done so to attract the public so that they are interested to invest their money during the company’s initial public offering (IPO).   Previously, the company has already performed manipulation of commodity prices in order to obtain huge profits due to unregulated energy derivative market. Moreover, the bankers also join this bogey as they have been giving loans and would like to reduce their risk hoping that Enron would obtain much money from IPO so that Enron can fulfill their obligation to the bank. Therefore, in this accountancy scandals there are at least three actors: the first is Enron, the company that has a pile of debt that was off balance sheet. The second actors are auditors; they acted as consultants that helped the Enron to write a fake figure of the company’s profit in the book. The third actors are bankers that issued good analyst reports for Enron financial performance and acted as underwriter. By doing so, Enron can raise much money to pay their loans to banks and back to the evil business when Enron run out of money again. Amazingly, within three years, the fake report gives Enron over $10 billion of investors’ money. The illegal action like cases of MicroStrategy and Xerox has caused the declining public trust on stock markets and auditors (AFL-CIO, 2007; Turner, 2002). 3. Bankruptcy and Insurance The case of Enron, WorldCom and other accounting scandals still leave public with many questions regarding the way the companies try to recover from the scandals especially when it comes to fair treatment for the hurt employees. The term â€Å"fair† refers to equal treatment for CEO and their workers. Remember the shocking Enron case a few months ago that many of people fail to recognize what went wrong at Enron, an energy-trading giant and once the seventh-largest company in U.S. The lawsuits and official investigations on Enron show that the bankruptcy has sent more than 6,100 of Enron employees into unemployment. In addition, it also causes serious fault at workers’ health care and retirement savings—for many, their life savings—because worker 401(k) plans were halted while the company stock price tumbled (AFL-CIO, 2007). Although the company’s performance went bankrupt, however, the Enron’s executive still obtain bonus checks for more than $55 million, in addition to $50 million in bonuses just weeks earlier. The Enron’s case is one example of increasing â€Å"pay gap† between CEOs and workers (AFL-CIO, 2007). Moreover, she also points out that the Project 911 turned out to give many benefits for Enron’s management instead of giving benefits for workers. In the Project 911, Enron was to pay the company’s executives $105 million worth of bonuses prior to the company’s bankruptcy filing in December 2001 (Steffy, 2005). However, according to the new bankruptcy law, which President Bush signed in April, a company might give their executives excessive compensation in the form of retention bonuses only if they have another job offer. It means that under new law, executives will not be paid to stay until they show proof they intend to leave (Steffy, 2005) The new law had driven the bankruptcy court to approve $38.2 million in additional retention bonuses in 2002 and another $29 million in 2003. The situation soon raises critics since the come with an inherent paradox. At the management level, the company took questioned decision to reward the very few people who drove the company into collapse. In other words, Enron was enticing a failed management to stay (Steffy, 2005). This situation refers to moral crisis since the company was paying attention to bonuses for the company’s executives instead of taking care of their employees. Although the case of Enron has become symbol of wrong model of corporate America, few observers expect it to become a lasting symbol (Ivanovich, 2002). In short, the first thing American companies should do is providing variable compensation scheme in which employees’ benefits will increase as the companies’ benefits increase as well. Therefore, employees will fee fairly treated and in turn increase their motivation. 4. Employment Law The cases on Enron and WorldCom present new atmosphere regarding the employment law since it involves whistle blower, a person who disclose the scandals. Since whistle blowing leads to negative impact for the blower, it is imperative that any person that intends to whistle blowing to do it effectively. Sherron Watkins, the person who discloses the scandals at Enron, is one example of whistle blower. In addition, whistle- blowing also greatly affects the executives of a company who are given information from an employee. In order to protect the whistle blower, Sarbanes-Oxley Act rule out there should be no discrimination against employees who disclose the wrongdoing in a company (Hails, n.d.). Amidst the fierce situation at Enron, Congress is still busy passing new laws in response to the latest news about corporate misdeeds. In fact, this is really not the best solution to the problem of corporate fraud at Enron.    Considering that whistle blowing leads to negative impact for the blower as it happens at Enron case, it is imperative that any person that intends to whistle blowing to do it effectively. Below is guideline that helps an employee to determine whether a situation merits whistle blowing: a) Magnitude of consequences A person intends to conduct whistle blowing consider the impact of a action that he consider as wrongdoing. If only one person will be harmed by an action, it does not call for any whistle blowing action (England, 2007) b) Probability of effect The person must be sure that a wrongdoing happens or will happen that requires for whistle blowing. If he is not sure about the situation, he had better not perform whistle blowing (England, 2007) c) Temporal immediacy The person must think the urgency to whistle blowing. If he considers it is urgent to prevent greater losses, he can conduct whistle blowing immediately (England, 2007) In addition, lots of accounting scandals incidences have driven NYSE to issue new guidelines intended to enhance the accountability and integrity and of NYSE-listed companies by strengthening the corporate governance and disclosure practices of those companies. Harvey Pitt, SEC chairperson, the person behind the birth of the guidelines, asks NYSE to review its corporate governance listing standards. Based on the facts, since most scandals involve insider, therefore senior managers should personally liable for criminal charges and damages. Concerning this issue, congress also has passed the Sarbanes Corporate Accountability Bill that one of its main provisions includes the fact that the chief executive officer and chief financial officer now have to sign off on a company’s financial records and may assume criminal liability if they are wrong. Under such circumstances, in the event that such scandals exist, investors and employees should not bear the responsibility for their own actions. This is because in this developed economy, people from all over the world have been willing to invest in ‘pieces of paper’ because of a basic trust that there are systems in place to make the ‘pieces of paper’ valuable. Therefore, it is the government’s responsibility to maintain people trust to invest in a piece of paper by providing an oversight system that works to protect the investor. Learning from these events, it is government’s responsibility to improve standards, controls and accountabilities. While companies should improve their employees moral in order to prevent any financial scandals in the future. This is imperative since most business schools lack of morality in their curriculum.

Should Teammates of P.E.D. Users Have Any Right to Their...

Any type of artificial substance that an athlete takes can be considered as a Performance Enhancing Drug. There are several different classes and each one has a unique effects and side effects. Some of the classes Performance Enhancing Drugs that are commonly used are: lean mass builders, stimulants, painkillers, sedatives, diuretics, boosters, and masking drugs (Wikipedia). Within each of these types of P.E.D.’s there are different drugs. Some may wonder what these classes are. Lean Mass Builders drive or amplify the growth of muscle and lean body mass. This can also reduce body fat and the time that an athlete takes to recover from an injury. Some types of lean mass builders are anabolic steroids, xenoandrogens, beta-2 agonists,†¦show more content†¦Now you may understand why these drugs are considered Performance Enhancing drugs. Each drug takes a different effect to help the athlete preform in a way that is better than their abilities. Some side affects for men who take anabolic steroids may be: developing breasts, having a decrease in sperm count, they may become infertile or become incompetent. Some of the effects on anabolic steroids for women are: growing excessive face and body hair, their voices may deepen, they may experience menstrual irregularities, reduced breast size, or have a masculinized female fetus. Also some of the effects that can happen on any man or women are: getting acne, have oily scalp and skin, jaundice, become bald, have heart attacks, develop significant risk of liver disease, have high levels of bad cholesterol, have mood swings, or suffer delusions (DeNoon). These are only a few of the bad effects of taking an anabolic steroid. What is the difference between an anabolic steroid and a corticosteroid? An anabolic steroid is a synthetic steroid hormone that resembles testosterone in promoting the growth of muscle. Such hormones are used medicinally to treat some forms of weight loss and (illegally) by some athletes and others to enhance physical performance. Whereas a corticosteroid is any of a group of steroid hormones produced in the adrenal cortex or made synthetically. There are two kinds: glucocorticoids and mineralocorticoids. They have various