Hot answers tagged

6

You can't just interpret the word "require" in isolation, you have to focus on what is allowed vs. disallowed by law. Guidance point K.1 starts with the rhetorical question Under the ADA, Title VII, and other federal employment nondiscrimination laws, may an employer require all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for ...


3

Overview The EEOC document linked in the news story is "What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws". In form it is an FAQ, that is, a series of questions and answers. The document provides guidance by the EEOC, and represents the EEOC's opinion as of the date it was issued. It is not a legally ...


2

Generally... There are important caveats to the general "two-party" consent rule in the State of California; I will attempt to generally describe some of them. "To violate the PC section 632 rule the communication must be "confidential" - this means that recordings taken in places where the other party should have reasonably ...


2

Generally speaking, in cases of defamation, there is a exception for information that is "in the public interest", which does not necessarily mean information that the public wishes to know, but rather information the public needs to know in order to maintain the "public good", such as there being an informed electorate. At first glance, ...


2

Where did California get authorization to receive my medical info from Walgreens? From HIPAA. Permitted Uses and Disclosures. A covered entity is permitted, but not required, to use and disclose protected health information, without an individual’s authorization, for the following purposes or situations: (1) To the Individual (unless required for access or ...


1

the cases don't look so different to me. What are the legal reasons (claims, laws) resulting in the outcomes being so different? They certainly are quite different. One main issue underlying Hill's controversy is her "political hypocrisy given her role in Congress" (page 8 of ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion). This is primarily in reference to the ...


1

This answer is under U.S. law, which would apply to many leading social media platforms even if the posters were not located in the U.S. since most of them are based in California and have a choice of law term in their terms of service (TOS). There are some jurisdictions that impose liability on someone for secretly taking photographs of someone else without ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible