I want to appreciate you for the excellent response on the issue of workers compensation. I like the case you have given since it also carries the role of the courts on the issue and moreover, what happens when such favor has been published on behalf of the employees when he or she goes back to the same company. The issues you have brought again on what the workers who have filed cases against their employers on the issue are treated. Most of us especially the courts fail to follow-up on the events after the judgment, and this leads to some of them being relieved of their jobs or subjected to some torture in the name of paybacks. In your post, the role of the affiliate courts comes in, and we come to realize that the company’s, on the other hand, having some rights on the issue.
The case involves Mr. Justice Brennan who was a member of the Seventh – day Adventist church and worked for a South Carolina employer. He was discharged from work because he was unable to come to work on Saturday since according to him that is a Sabbath day and he should not work. He filed a claim for the unemployment compensation benefit against South Carolina his employer to gain the advantages of the whole policy. However, according to the act, the law says that to be eligible for any benefit, the claimant must be able and also available to work for that company. The appellee employment security commission claimed that the worker was provided with the rights to work and he left with no course of reason and therefore the case was in favor of the employer. However, the South Carolina supreme courts reviewed the case and applied the reasoning of freedom to religion and others. However, I don’t know whether Mr. Justice should be compensated or not.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S. Ct. 1790, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965 (1963).
Hello dear one
I would like to appreciate you for the reply on the post and also on the unusual case of the ‘’ Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division.’’ you have brought forward. Perhaps, I would like to say that it is indeed an interesting and is full of content. Moreover, the case study you have brought also touches on the religious belief and influence in the unemployment situations in the society today. Mr. Thomas as a Jehovah witness thinks that his knowledge is put to the test by working on things that would be used by the military perhaps that would be used to kill some people. I definitely, like your response and the choice of the case. I will not add anything but just to say regards.
I want to say thank you for the excellent response and a fantastic choice of the case study ‘’ of United States v. Lee, 455 US 252 – Supreme Court 1982.’’ First of all, the response is brief and perhaps to the point. Ideally, there have been some happenings like the case you have given where the people of a particular group based on their religious belief do not need any of the social security issues where the government insists that everyone should pay. I also believe that the government should make such considerations in favor of religious groups and not just turn their request down.
United States v. Lee, 455 US 252 – Supreme Court 1982. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15551538265464303476&q=unemployment+insurance&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36
The case involves the FICA taxation for the young medics who are in the internship. The United States contends that the student exception to the law cannot, and therefore the law should apply to all the medical residents. The house claimed that the coverage of the services would enable the young doctor’s early start-ups accumulating the social security issue in the medical department. The states assert that the repeal for the medical intern exceptions as Rockswolds vs. American claims on the issue of the students being part of the team paying for the social security issue in the nation just like other employees around. Perhaps, I think for the benefit of the students, they should begin to get the benefit of the social security acts.
US v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 282 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D. Minn. 2003).
It is my great concern to appreciate you for the reply that you have given on the issue of the social security. Moreover, I like the comment since it is brief and to the point. Perhaps, just to contribute and not necessarily to add to what you have said, many times in the society we have heard of many people’s social security funds being withheld, and your response has reminded me of one case I read the newspaper. Perhaps, the fact is right, and I think that Mr. Nesta should be given his 19 years compensation from the government without any reason of delay since the money belongs to him and the sole cause of the security are provided after some stated period has elapsed.
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603 – Supreme Court 1960. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5373695872604515216&q=social+security+taxation&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_ylo=1950&as_yhi=2000
Hello, class, I want to appreciate you all for the reply on the issue of the social security act that has been affecting the employment sectors. Most of the employer would run from the responsibility of paying the social security as in the case of Mr. Anderson’s manager who failed to hire him as the employer but as a contractor in the bid to escape the payment of the social security. Perhaps, what you have given is paramount and speaks of many out there who suffers the same case as Anderson. I think the specifications should be paid for any job that a person applies to give directions on a role of the contract.
Moore medical cooperation fired James Geissal who has had a health problem since he had cancer. While employed, James was covered by Moore’s group health plan as well as the health plan provided by the wife’s employer. Soon after he lost his job, he was told by Moore that he has a right under COBRA to continue getting coverage under Moore and he made a premium payment for six months after which he was told that he was mistaken. He said that he should claim for the COBRA benefits because he has health coverage. James Geissal went forward and brought the suit against Moore for undermining the obligation to continue with the provision of the health coverage to the COBRA health benefits. He then went forward to several courts to seek for the right implementation of justice.
Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp., 524 U.S. 74, 118 S. Ct. 1869, 141 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1998).
I just want to appreciate you for the reply on the Cobra benefits on the life of employments. The case selection of the Mayes vs. Winco is a good representation of the ongoing conflict that is happening in the society today. The society has moved in such a way to refuse some of the rights of people especially after the discharge that comes from some misconduct. The plaintiff in the case you have provides it a belief that indeed the most of the companies move to affect the eligibility of some of the employees. I like the reason that you have given on the issue of payment of the medical coverage.
Mayes v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., 846 F. 3d 1274 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2017 (2017) Retrieved from
Hello dear one,
Thank you for the reply I recognize your contribution on the issue of COBRA benefits. Most of the employers take advantage on the issue of disability and sickness that comes while the person is still under employment. The case is perhaps interesting and involves being fired and again refused to pay for the benefits for relieving. Mrs. Kariotis represents so many outside there, who has gone through such treatments, and the government does very little for them, and they end up mistreated.