Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face". [6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination", [6] such as in the case of Rolon v.
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15–16, 1967, and decided June 12, 1967. The case involved Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights, the taking of handwriting exemplars, in-court identifications and warrantless searches.
Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater protection to employees of the state or of state contractors. The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included as well, since federal law only covers workers over 40.
In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic (e.g. race or sex) under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact , where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a ...
The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v.United States [5] and Korematsu v. United States. [6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, and religion as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.
The District Court, upon remand, declared that the dancing was not constitutionally protected speech, [3] and the businesses appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court's ruling. The opinions authored by the judges on the Seventh Circuit's panel accepted the argument that the statute in question unduly ...
California law and the FEHA also allow for the imposition of punitive damages [9] [10] when a corporate defendant's officers, directors or managing agents engage in harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, or when such persons approve or consciously disregard prohibited conduct by lower-level employees in violation of the rights or safety of the plaintiff or others.