If you have a serious health condition that causes you to be unable to perform the functions of your job, you may be entitled to the protections contained in the Family and Medical Leave Act. Under the act, if you are entitled to relief because of a medically certified serious health condition, you are entitled to up to twelve weeks of protected leave in which when you return to work you can return to your original position or a position comparable to the original position. The act's strictures prevent your employer from using the leave as a negative factor in employment actions such as hiring, promotions or disciplinary actions, including termination of employment.
To qualify for the leave, you must have:
(1) worked for the employer for at least one year prior to applying for the leave;
(2) worked at least 1250 hours during that year; and,
(3) a doctor certify that you have a serious health condition that requires leave.
If those requirements are met, you are entitled to leave without penalty as long as your employer falls within the purview of the act's requirements. For more details, please contact me at 330-494-1022 and arrange a consultation.
The Affordable Health Care bill, referred to in political circles as "Obamacare", has been found to be consitutional by the United States Supreme Court in a controversial 5-4 decision. Several conservative pundits railed against Chief Justice Roberts for his vote finding the law constitutional. They could have saved their breath. This law was constitutional because Congress has the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. As much as some people have taken to legal gymnastics to state that the insurance industry is not part of interstate commerce, if a "ma and pa" restaurant tucked in the back hills of Georgia can be held to be part of interstate commerce to enforce discrimination laws prohibiting racial discrimination, the insurance industry can be held to be part of interstate commerce. If the court had ruled that the insurance industry was not part of interstate commerce and not subject to the control of Congress, it would have established an anomoly similar to Professional Baseball being exempt from the strictures of anti-trust legislation while other sports are not exempt from such laws. It would have provided a situation where a local lunch counter was subject to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce while the insurance industry was not. Roberts, by voting with the liberal wing of the court, prevented that particular situation from occuring since the liberal wing stated that Congress had the power and the right to regulate interstate commerce including the insurance industry under the purview of that power.
Chief Justice Roberts did create an unusual situation with his opinion. Instead of addressing the commerce clause issues, he instead stated that the mandatory requirements and their penalties were a tax and Congress has the power to administer a tax. In other words, he avoided the whole issue of the Commerce Clause and introduced a new entirely different twist to nationalized healthcare reform. The liberals, seeing that they would not be able to convince him on the interstate commerce clause argument, joined with him in a concurring decision. Thus, a new twist to constitutional law has been introduced. It is quite evident that the President was happy about the result, but the Republicans, after sitting dumbfounded, for a few hours gleefully found a political issue by which they could exploit this fall. Obamacare promotes new taxes against anyone according to the Republican Party. It may be sufficient to get them elected but to declare the law unconstitutional they will not be able to do so. The legacy of Obamacare whether the President wins or loses this fall will bring a great deal of political strife in the next four years. What are your thoughts on the constitutional issues raised by the court in this case? Whether or not you agree with the Affordable Health Care Act is not the issue? Whether or not it is constitutional is? I say it is constitutional, though the Chief Justice has brought an entirely new twist to constitutional arguments. What do you think?
This portion of the website is to generate a dialogue as to the important issues dealing with the law, be it federal or state oriented. It is hoped that this site will allow people to express opinions, receive vital information, and to discuss various issues dealing with the law. It is not a site when someone can express inappropriate remarks about lawyers, judges, legislators, representatives in Congress or state legislatures, etc. If you want to express inappropriate remarks there are numerous other sites where you can do that. Civility is paramount on this site. If you wish to shock, visit another site. If you wish to have an exchange of ideas and thoughts, please proceed. We would ask that you would identify yourself since that is part of the civil exchange. No lawyer, politician, judge, etc. can use a username to hide his or her identity in the public forums. If you are afraid of differences of opinion, I highly suggest you go to another site. Welcome and let's start to discuss the law and the legal system of our country.