100 mg Phenytoin no prescription : 100 mg Phenytoin no prescription http://blog.stillmanlegal.com Personal Injury & Employment attorneys South of Boston Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:29:20 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 Snow & Ice http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=47 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=47#respond Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:29:20 +0000 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=47 With winter approaching, home and business owners should be aware of the potential liability they may face for slip & fall incidents that occur on their property. Up until 2010, an individual who was injured because she slipped & fell on a “natural accumulation” of ice or snow had no legal recourse. This resulted in

free viagra samples before buying uk

The post purchase Phenytoin online appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
With winter approaching, home and business owners should be aware of the potential liability they may face for slip & fall incidents that occur on their property. Up until 2010, an individual who was injured because she slipped & fell on a “natural accumulation” of ice or snow had no legal recourse. This resulted in plaintiff attorneys needing to prove that there was some alteration to the natural accumulation.
In Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368 (2010), the Supreme Judicial Court eliminated the long-standing rule for determining liability of a landowner for injury resulting from snow or ice. The court abolished the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, and applied to all hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation of reasonable care that a property owner owes to lawful visitors regarding all other hazard
This means that a landowner is required to make reasonable steps to ensure its property is safe for visitors and guests on her property.
We hope that you stay safe, but if you have any questions about the duties of a landowner or the rights you may have if you are interested feel free to contact us.

The post purchase Phenytoin online appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?feed=rss2&p=47 0
When The Dress Code Does Not Match Religious Practice: The Abercrombie Case http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=44 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=44#respond Mon, 08 Jun 2015 19:59:29 +0000 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=44 When The Dress Code Does Not Match Religious Practice: The Abercrombie Case American youth fashion recently crossed paths with a fundamental civil rights law in a case that garnered national attention. On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court found that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

Phenytoin where to buy

The post order Phenytoin from canada appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
When The Dress Code Does Not Match Religious Practice: The Abercrombie Case

American youth fashion recently crossed paths with a fundamental civil rights law in a case that garnered national attention. On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court found that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf as part of her religious obligations because it did not conform to the store’s “Look Policy.” The story began back in 2008 in Tulsa, Oklahoma when 17-year-old Samantha Elauf, like thousands of other teenagers across the country, applied for a job with the popular retail clothing store. She interviewed with the assistant store manager who found Ms. Elauf to be qualified for the position. Because Ms. Elauf had been wearing a headscarf that did not comply with the dress code, the assistant store manager sought the advice of the district manager, even disclosing to him that she believed Ms. Elauf wore the headscarf for religious regions. Nonetheless, he advised her not to hire Ms. Elauf.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) then sued Abercrombie & Fitch for violating Ms. Elauf’s Title VII rights. The EEOC won on summary judgment at the District Court level and was awarded $20,000.00 in damages. 798 F.Supp.2d 1272 (ND Okla. 2011). However, that decision was overturned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that Ms. Elauf did not inform Abercrombie of her need for an accommodation. 731 F.3d 1106 (2013). The U.S. Supreme Court took the case on further appeal to decide whether “actual knowledge” by the employer was a prerequisite for a Title VII intentional discrimination claim.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) (emphasis added). The Act further states, “[t]he term ‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” §2000e(j).

Abercrombie argued that the language in the statute required the employer to have had actual knowledge of an applicant’s religious practice and need for an accommodation. It claimed that it could not have acted “because of” a religious practice without having actual knowledge of it. The Court was not swayed by that logic, however, noting that Congress could have included a knowledge requirement if it so desired just like it did in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which requires reasonable accommodations for “known physical or mental limitations.” 42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(5)(A). Instead, an employer may be held liable under Title VII as long as the applicant’s need for a religious accommodation was a “motivating factor” in its decision to not hire, and an employer could very well have such motive without actual knowledge.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Elauf marks a significant victory for employees and job applicants. It sends a message to companies that they cannot plead ignorance and fail to hire an otherwise qualified applicant in order to avoid providing a reasonable accommodation. If a particular practice such as wearing a headscarf is even presumed to carry with it a religious meaning, that factor simply cannot be considered in the hiring decision. At the same time, it is important to remember that an employer cannot be forced into an accommodation that would create an undue hardship for its company. In this case, it clearly would not have been too burdensome for Abercrombie to allow Ms. Elauf to work in its store while wearing a headscarf.

The post order Phenytoin from canada appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?feed=rss2&p=44 0
“Cat’s Paw” Theory of Liability http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=39 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=39#respond Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:49:17 +0000 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=39 In a recent decision, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court summary judgment for the Defendant employer in a case in which the Plaintiff asserted what is known as the “cat’s paw” theory of liability. Under this theory, where an employer takes adverse action against an employee (i.e. termination or discipline), even

how can i buy Phenytoin

The post buy Phenytoin australia appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
In a recent decision, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court summary judgment for the Defendant employer in a case in which the Plaintiff asserted what is known as the “cat’s paw” theory of liability. Under this theory, where an employer takes adverse action against an employee (i.e. termination or discipline), even for a valid reason, it may still be held liable if the information used by the employer was obtained based on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.

In Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc., decided on January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff had been terminated for falsifying his timecards that resulted in his taking extended lunches and getting paid for extra time when he was not working. These violations were reported to an upper-level manager by two of the Plaintiff’s supervisors who had been alerted to the situation by two co-workers. The Plaintiff was subsequently fired, and he filed suit arguing that he was targeted because the supervisors had resented him for previously taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. He relied on Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S.Ct. 1186 (2011) in arguing that an employer can still be liable even if the information reported by those allegedly having a discriminatory or retaliatory animus is true. That argument was contrary to the 1st Circuit’s decision in Cariglia v. Hertz Equip. Rental Corp., 363 F.3d 77, 83 (1st Cir. 2004) that requires the information provided to a decision-maker be “inaccurate, misleading or incomplete.” The Ameen Court refrained from trying to reconcile these two inconsistent standards because it felt the Plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary first step that those who reported the timecard violations had a discriminatory or retaliatory animus. His only evidence was that he was reported while others were not.

While the decision in Ameen failed to clarify whether an employer could still be liable where the information reported to a decision-maker were true, complete, and accurate, it highlights an interesting issue in employment law. The Court did not strike down or fail to recognize the “cat’s paw” theory of liability in Massachusetts, rather it found that the Plaintiff did not prove it in this case. It also serves as a reminder that while an employer cannot enforce its rules in a discriminatory or retaliatory manner to its workforce, an employee’s membership in a protected class does not provide full immunity from adverse action. Understanding and balancing those two concepts can be the difference between having a winning case and a losing one.

If you feel you have been the target of discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, we would like to hear from you to help you determine if you have a valid claim.

The post buy Phenytoin australia appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?feed=rss2&p=39 0
The “Dog Bite” Statute http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=36 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=36#respond Fri, 21 Nov 2014 22:14:52 +0000 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=36 Like the majority of states in the country, Massachusetts imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries or damages caused by a dog. Under Massachusetts General Laws c. 140, §155, the dog owner is liable unless the injured party was trespassing or was tormenting, teasing, or abusing the dog. If the injured party is under

cheapest place to buy Phenytoin

The post can i order Phenytoin online appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
Like the majority of states in the country, Massachusetts imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries or damages caused by a dog. Under Massachusetts General Laws c. 140, §155, the dog owner is liable unless the injured party was trespassing or was tormenting, teasing, or abusing the dog. If the injured party is under 7 years of age, it will be presumed that the child was not trespassing or tormenting, teasing, or abusing the dog and the burden would then be on the Defendant to prove otherwise.

Although it is commonly referred to as the “dog bite” statute, M.G.L. c. 140, §155 also holds dog owners strictly liable for damage to property. Therefore, if a dog got loose and caused damage to someone’s yard, vehicle, fence, or other personal property, the owner would responsible for paying for those damages as well. With few exceptions, personal injuries and damages to property caused by dogs are generally covered by the dog owner’s homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. If you have any questions or would like to inquire whether you are entitled to compensation under this statute, please give us a call at (781) 829-1077 or email us at info@stillmanlegal.com

The post can i order Phenytoin online appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?feed=rss2&p=36 0
Car Accidents- Tort threshold http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=33 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=33#respond Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:36:47 +0000 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=33 In Massachusetts, a person that has been injured in a motor vehicle accident as a driver or passenger must incur a minimum of $2,000.00 in medical expenses as a prerequisite to recover damages for pain and suffering. Under Massachusetts General Laws c. 231, §6D, a Plaintiff may recover for pain and suffering (including, in some

can you buy Phenytoin over the counter in dubai

The post buy Phenytoin appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
In Massachusetts, a person that has been injured in a motor vehicle accident as a driver or passenger must incur a minimum of $2,000.00 in medical expenses as a prerequisite to recover damages for pain and suffering. Under Massachusetts General Laws c. 231, §6D, a Plaintiff may recover for pain and suffering (including, in some cases, mental suffering) for injuries related to a motor vehicle accident only if the reasonable and necessary expenses in treating such injuries exceed $2,000.00. There are several exceptions to the $2,000.00 threshold under the statute. Pain and suffering damages are recoverable regardless of the amount of medical expenses in cases involving death, loss of a body member, disfigurement, loss of sight or hearing, or a fractured bone.

This does not mean that you must have paid that amount yourself, only that the cost of such treatment reached that amount. In fact, in most cases the personal injury protection (“PIP”) coverage of your auto insurance policy covers the first $2,000.00 of medical bills, including chiropractic care. After that your health insurance policy would apply, but you would be subject to any deductibles your policy may require. Therefore, you may have exceeded the $2,000.00 threshold without even realizing it.

Due to high costs of medical care, you can quickly incur over $2,000.00 in medical care even for minor accidents. A trip to the emergency room for examination, an MRI, and follow-up visit with your primary care physician will usually cost in excess of $2,000.00. If you are injured in a motor vehicle accident in Massachusetts and are contemplating whether to pursue a personal injury claim against the other driver, please call us for a free consultation. We can help you determine whether to pursue a claim and guide you every step of the way.

The post buy Phenytoin appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?feed=rss2&p=33 0
Employees at Will http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=10 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=10#respond Sun, 09 Nov 2014 02:53:08 +0000 http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?p=10 Unless you have an employment contract, you are an employee at will. That means you can be terminated for any reason except for an illegal one. An employer can not terminate you because you are in a protected class. Some examples of a “protected class” are race, age, nationality, sex or disability. Generally, an employer

Phenytoin buy fast

The post 100 mg Phenytoin no prescription appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
Unless you have an employment contract, you are an employee at will. That means you can be terminated for any reason except for an illegal one. An employer can not terminate you because you are in a protected class. Some examples of a “protected class” are race, age, nationality, sex or disability. Generally, an employer won’t tell you they are terminating you because you are in a protected class. If you think that you may have been wrongfully terminated call one of our attorneys or email us at info@stillmanlegal.com to see if we can help.

The post 100 mg Phenytoin no prescription appeared first on buy Phenytoin uk.

]]>
http://blog.stillmanlegal.com/?feed=rss2&p=10 0