Case Study 13-2. Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct

Case Study 13-2. Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct

On March 4, 2011, Mr. Charles Lee was removed from the Postal Service. The Notice of Removal


“ You pled guilty to Count 1 of the information charging you with a violation of Title 18

USC § 371, Conspiracy to Commit an Offense or to Defraud the United States. ”

In an August 9, 2010 plea agreement that you signed, you engaged in a conspiracy to acquire

financing for two quadruplex homes located at 8416 and 8418 Camden Street, Miami, Florida. You

lacked the necessary financial assets to qualify for these loans. The elements of the conspiracy


“ You employed the service of Paldo Corporation to purchase the quadruplexes for

$100,000.00 each. You signed contracts agreeing to purchase the same

properties from Paldo for $169,000.00 each. As part of the conspiracy, false data were

provided to an appraiser to justify the inflated sales prices for the properties, and in

reliance of the fraudulent information, a lending institution extended loans in amounts

substantially in excess of the true values of these properties. In order to qualify for the

mortgage financing, you submitted two mortgage loan applications. In each application,

you falsely stated you had made a $19,000.00 down payment to Paldo Corporation. In

reality, you had agreed with Bert Muscat, Realtor, to accept a “rebate” on your down

payment in the amount of $19,000.00 from his commission. This was accomplished

through an exchange of checks. The purported down payment was thus a sham

transaction. The net effect of this scheme was that you were able to purchase this

property with “no money down” on your part. You received an additional $10,000.00

Book Title: Custom eTextbook: The Labor Relations Process Chapter 13. Labor Relations in the Public Sector Case Study 13-2. Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct

rebate after the closing, thereby reducing the actual purchase price of the properties. You

agreed with the loan broker and others not to disclose any of this rebate scheme to the

financial institution. In addition, you also failed to disclose on the loan application, two

other mortgage loans on which you were obligated. Your plea of guilty to Count 1 of the

information was accepted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida on September 21, 2010, and you were adjudged guilty. On December 3, 2010,

U.S. District Judge William S. Casta sentenced you to serve six months house arrest,

two years probation and ordered you to make restitution in the amount of$136,398.64 to

the lending institution you had defrauded. ”

Section 2635.101(a) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch

states, in pertinent part:

“ Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States

Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical

principles above private gain. ”

Section 661.53 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual states:

“ Unacceptable Conduct. No employee will engage in criminal, dishonest, notoriously

disgraceful or immoral conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service.

Conviction of a violation of any criminal statute may be grounds for disciplinary action by

the Postal Service, in addition to any other penalty by or pursuant to statute. ”

Your misconduct of conspiring to defraud the United States is in direct conflict with the basic

obligations of public service. As a postal employee, you hold a position that requires honesty and


You have the right to file a grievance within fourteen (14) days of your receipt of this notice of


On March 16, 2011, a step 1 meeting was held and the following written grievance was filed:

“ Background: On March 4, 2011, Mr. Lee received written notification that he would be

removed from the Postal Service for violation of the standards of ethical conduct and

unacceptable conduct. He pled guilty to violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 371, Conspiring to

Commit an Offense or Defraud the United States. Management’s Position: Mr. Lee was

removed from the Postal Service for his unacceptable conduct. He had an obligation as a

postal employee to demonstrate honesty and trustworthiness. He broke this trust when

he pled guilty to defrauding the United States. Union’s Position: Management did not

show just cause when it issued a notice of removal to Mr. Lee. Further, Management

currently employ another employee, Scotty Hall, a convicted felon and has not remove

him and other similar-situated employees. ”

The grievance was denied and was appealed. The step 2 grievance was completed by David

Tover, union steward, who stated:

“ Violation: Including but not limited to National (Art. & Sect.) 16.1, 16.6, 16.7, 19. Other

Grounds: ELM 661.53, previous arbitration cases. Facts and Union Contentions: Date,

Time & Location: 5 Feb. 94, GMF Miami, Fla. What Happened: Grievant was issued

Notice of Removal dated March 4, 2010. Reason for removal was cited as: you pled

guilty to Count 1 of the information, charging you with a violation of Title 18, U.S.C. &

371, Conspiracy to Commit an Offense or to Defraud the United States. Grievant and

Union contend that removal is without just cause. Corrective Action Requested: That

Grievant be returned to his job immediately and that he be made whole in all respects. ”

Mr. R. H. Gooche, Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO), Tour 3, provided management’s step

2 answer. He wrote:

On March 16, 2011, a Step 2 meeting was held to discuss the subject grievance.

Union Position: Union Contends:

1. The removal is without just cause.

2. Grievant did not knowingly commit a criminal offense.

3. Grievant was misled and he trusted other people, and therefore unwittingly became involved in a wrongful


4. The Postal Service has not presented any nexus between the grievant’s workplace and the criminal


5. During the investigative interview, management stated that conviction of a felony is a removable offense.

However there is no provision to automatically remove an employee from the postal service based simply

on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony.

6. The Postal Service infers that being convicted of a criminal offense automatically means that an employee

is no longer loyal and trustworthy and destroys the faith and trust in him by the U.S. Postal Service and


Management responded to each of the union’s contentions:

1. The grievant was removed from the Postal Service for his unacceptable conduct. He had an obligation as

a postal employee to demonstrate honesty and trustworthiness. He broke this trust when he pled guilty to

defrauding the United States.

2. The grievant voluntarily pled guilty. Case No. 93–234-CR-T-15 (A) Plea Agreement Page 6, Paragraph 5.

Second element for the crime: That the defendant willingly became a member of such conspiracy. Page 9,

paragraph 13 states that the grievant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge contained

in Count One of the Information.

3. The grievant was part of a conspiracy to defraud financial institutions using the U.S. Mails. Appraisal on all

properties was inflated, which resulted in the subject receiving kickbacks from the original mortgage

company holding the mortgage. The grievant was involved in a wrongful act for three years. It is

reasonable to believe that the grievant had enough knowledge of the conspiracy to know what he was

doing was illegal.

4. The grievant and two others conspired in a scheme to defraud financial institutions using the U.S. Mails.

5. The grievant conspired in a scheme to defraud financial institutions using the U.S. Mails. By doing so he

violated his obligation as a Postal Employee to demonstrate honesty and trustworthiness. However he

was not automatically removed. An investigation into the grievant’s conduct was conducted. An

investigative interview was held by the grievant’s supervisor, William Smith, resulting in the grievant being

placed in an off-duty status. The grievant was removed from the Postal Service on March 4, 2011. All

actions taken were after a complete investigation, hardly an automatic removal.

6. The grievant was found guilty of a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed. The

grievant pled guilty to Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. A complete investigation of all facts was

conducted; the facts of this case bring into question the loyalty and trustworthiness of the grievant. The

grievant conspired to defraud financial institutions using the U.S. Mails, compromising the faith and trust

in him by the Postal Service.

Based on the facts the grievant was properly removed from the Postal Service.

The grievance is denied.

The grievance was appealed to arbitration.


Was the removal of Charles Lee for just cause?

If not, what shall be the proper remedy?

Article 16

Relevant Provisions of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual

661.11 This Code of Ethical Conduct is designed to instruct and guide employees entering the

Postal Service, and to remind all employees of the conduct expected and required of them in

performing their official duties and in their general conduct.

661.3 Standards of Conduct

Employees must avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by this Code, which might

result in or create the appearance of:

Using Postal Service office for private gain.

Giving preferential treatment to any person.

Impeding Postal Service efficiency or economy.

Losing complete independence or impartiality.

Making a Postal Service decision outside official channels.

Affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Postal Service.

Unacceptable Conduct. No employee will engage in criminal, dishonest, notoriously disgraceful or

immoral conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service. Conviction of a violation of any

criminal statute may be grounds for disciplinary action by the Postal Service, in addition to any

other penalty by or pursuant to statute.

Positions of the Parties


Management stated that it is a fact that Mr. Lee pled guilty to “conspiracy to defraud the United

States” and therefore the Postal Service does not have to prove that he was guilty. Management

claimed that Mr. Lee violated that standard of ethical conduct, that the Postal Service and the

public had lost trust in Mr. Lee as a postal employee, and he was not loyal to the Constitution and

the laws of the United States. Therefore, his actions were in violation of several provisions of the

Employee and Labor Relations Manual, and there was an obvious “nexus” between his crime and

his employment.

Management argued that the burden is on the union to prove that there was disparate treatment of

Mr. Lee. There was no disparate treatment of Mr. Lee because Ms. Edwards, the other postal

employee named by the union as a comparison, was not “similarly situated,” was not in the same

department, was not in the bargaining unit, did not plead guilty, and was not found guilty. In the

other comparison case, the union failed in its effort to show disparate treatment by addressing

Scotty Hall’s employment because his case was a hiring decision, not a removal decision.

Moreover, Mr. Hall’s civil rights had been restored prior to the date of his employment by the Postal


Mr. Lee was afforded the same opportunity as other employees who were judged guilty, that is,

either to resign or to be removed. Mr. Lee chose not to resign; therefore, he was removed from the

Postal Service. Management argued that even though the investigation mentioned that Mr. Lee

was involved in a conspiracy to defraud the financial institution using the U.S. Mails as a reason for

his removal, the union is not justified in using this information to support its claim.

Management explained that it considered the investigation, the plea of guilty, and the seriousness

of the crime. Management conducted its own investigation and gave Mr. Lee an opportunity to

present his side of the case. After its investigation, management found no merit to Mr. Lee’s

explanation and concluded that the removal was justified.

Management argued that the postal employees knew that Mr. Lee had been convicted of a crime.

Management stated: “… our employees knew. It doesn’t take a ‘rocket scientist’ to figure it out.

Everyone was aware.” Management submitted a decision by an appeals referee of the Florida

Department of Labor and Employment Security concerning Mr. Lee’s claim for unemployment

compensation. Management noted the following excerpt:

“ Consideration was given to the claimant’s contention that he was treated more harshly

than other postal employees who were involved in the same criminal activity. In support

of that position, the claimant provided information that another postal employee was not

disciplined. Further information provided by the claimant including that adjudication was

withheld by the court on the other employee. Since the legal disposition was different in

that case, the employer’s failure to discipline with the same degree of severity is not

viewed as disparate treatment. The claimant’s contention is rejected. At the hearing, the

parties agreed that there is a possibility that the claimant will be reinstated in his job. The

notice of removal, however, specifically terminated the claimant from his position and is

viewed as a discharge. The discharge was for misconduct connected with the work and

the claimant was properly disqualified from receiving benefits. ”

The Postal Service stated that postal employees must be honest and reliable and have good

character. Mr. Lee’s actions were willful and deliberate and were against the interests of the U.S.

government of which the Postal Service is a part. Guidelines for Postal employees are published in

the Employee and Labor Relations Manual to guide employee behavior.

Management responded to the union’s claim that Mr. Lee was an “ideal,” “long-term” employee with

no record of discipline. Management questioned this claim because no evidence was presented.

Mr. Lee was a “good employee” and the decision to remove Mr. Lee was “difficult.” However,

management felt “compelled to take removal action.” His actions were no different from theft, and

Mr. Lee had stolen money from the same institution that employed him. Management then asked:

“If he will steal, how can we trust him? He will have many opportunities to steal.”

Management objected to the introduction, any consideration, and any comparison to Ms. Edwards’

employment. The union did not mention any comparison between Mr. Lee and Ms. Edwards in the

processing of Mr. Lee’s grievance. Therefore, the union was estopped from arguing any

comparison at the hearing when disparate treatment had not been mentioned earlier.

Management concluded that a finding that Mr. Lee was removed from the Postal Service for just

cause and that his grievance should be denied.

The Union

The union argued that the Postal Service made its decision to remove Mr. Lee solely on the basis

of his conviction. The union claimed that the Postal Service failed to establish any connection

(nexus) between the crime and Mr. Lee’s ability to perform as a productive employee. The Postal

Service must show a nexus between the crime and the efficiency of the Postal Service and how the

Postal Service was adversely affected, and management failed to do so. The Postal Service

claimed that the public trust was broken, but there was no evidence that anyone in the public knew

of Mr. Lee’s conviction. In fact, there was no evidence that any other employees complained about

working with Mr. Lee.

The union presented numerous arbitration decisions to show that a postal employee may not be

removed from employment based solely on the commitment of a crime. The first arbitrator wrote:

“As many arbitrators have recognized, the Postal Service, among other things, must establish a

nexus between the employees conduct and the employment relationship. It must seek to

determine, for example, whether the occurrences of the off-duty misconduct has destroyed the

basis for continued employment because of adverse impacts on the efficiency, operations, property

or personnel of the Postal Service. To put it another way, the Postal Service must show some harm

to it, to the public, or to fellow employees if the employee continues his employment.”

In a second arbitration case, the grievant was charged with murder and later found guilty of first

degree manslaughter. The grievant shot his wife in the head with a 32-caliber pistol. The arbitrator

wrote in his decision that, “The Grievant’s conviction of first degree manslaughter, his sentencing

and his subsequent placement on probation did not involve an on-the-job action. Neither did it

involve a job related matter with an adverse impact on employee or public relations, efficiency, etc.,

or pose a threat to Postal operations, property or personnel.”

In a third case, the grievant was charged with aggravated sexual assault and criminal sexual

conduct. The grievant pled guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct. The arbitrator interpreted

the CSRA, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10), as prohibiting the termination of a Postal Service employee for

off-duty misconduct absent a showing that such conduct would affect the efficiency of the service.

The Court held that this requirement of a nexus cannot be satisfied by “unsupported general

assertions” or internal regulations prohibiting certain kinds of “immoral” or “disgraceful” conduct

period.” The arbitrator wrote: “The Court read the CSRA as an expression of congressional intent

with respect to termination for off-duty misconduct. Clearly, an arbitrator operating under a just

cause standard in a Postal Service contract should give great weight to such clearly expressed

Congressional intent.”

In the fourth case, the grievant was charged with knowingly receiving child pornography through

the mails, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2). The grievant was found guilty of knowingly receiving

child pornography through the mails and was sentenced to a ten year suspended sentence, five-

year probation, and a fine of $50. The arbitrator wrote: “Under this contract, employees may only

be discharged or disciplined for just cause. Arbitrators and courts have interpreted this requirement

and similar statutory standards, as prohibiting the discharge of a Postal Service employee for off

duty, off-premises, misconduct unrelated to the employee’s job. In such cases, the Postal Service

must show that the retention of the employee will have some adverse impact on the employee

relationship. This principle has often been interpreted as requiring a showing of a nexus between

the off-duty misconduct and the ability of the employee to function in his job.”

In a fifth case, the arbitrator wrote: “Ms. Nichole’s conviction on charges associated with her

fraudulent application for housing subsidy funds is unrelated to her employment. Her conduct was

not prejudicial to the Postal Service. (661.53 E&LM). There is no showing of an adverse impact on

the employer or its employees. For these reasons this removal is not for just cause.”

In a sixth case, the arbitrator wrote in his opinion: “The weight of arbitral authority requires that a

nexus be shown before an employee may be discharged for off-duty, off-premises misconduct.”

See, for example, Elkouri and Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, Seventh Edition, page 15–11 and

cases cited.

The union argued that Mr. Lee was an excellent employee for 13 years with the Postal Service.

During these 13 years, Mr. Lee had no discipline issues and continued to perform effectively for

several months even after his conviction. Since the Postal Service was not adversely affected

during this time, the return of Mr. Lee to his former job had not and would not adversely affect the

performance and efficiency of the Postal Service. Management claimed that its trust of Mr. Lee was

broken, but offered no evidence.

The union claimed that the Postal Service failed to take any action against another employee who

was charged with the same crime and who continues to be employed as a postal employee. Other

employees who were involved in the “scheme” were offered to resign or told they would be fired.

However, no evidence was presented.



In regard to the charge and conviction, the union contended that the management incorrectly used

the postal inspector’s memos wherein Management indicated that Mr. Lee had conspired to

“defraud financial institutions using the U.S. Mails.” The fact is Mr. Lee was not charged with

misuse of the U.S. Mails. The Postal Service falsely charged him and this charge contaminated the

cause for removal.

The union addressed two arguments made by management:

unemployment compensation claim and

knowledge about continued employment of Ms. Edwards.

First, the unemployment compensation decision referred to “misconduct connected with work,” and

the arbitrator is not bound by this decision. Unemployment compensation is another forum with

different rules. Second, the union did not find out that Ms. Edwards’s employment had been

continued even though she was involved in the same financial scheme as Mr. Lee and that she had

been charged with the same crime until after Mr. Lee had filed an EEO claim, just before the date

of the arbitration hearing. During the processing of this EEO claim, the grievant and the union were

made aware of the fact that Ms. Edwards remained on the payrolls as a postal employee.

The union contended that the burden of proof rests with the Postal Service and it has failed to

prove just cause for the removal of Mr. Lee. As a result, the union requested that Mr. Lee be

returned to his former position, that his back pay and benefits including overtime and interest be

restored, and that all references to this removal be expunged.


1. What are the rules for discharge for off-duty conduct?

2. Explain the term nexus as used in labor arbitration.

3. Does equal treatment have any bearing on the outcome of this decision?

4. What is the rule concerning use of the employer’s submission of the unemployment

compensation claim in the labor arbitration proceedings?

5. How much weight should be given to Mr. Lee’s job performance after his conviction but before

his termination?

6. Should the arbitrator consider the union’s submission of evidence of the continued

employment of Ms. Edwards and Mr. Hall? Give your reasoning.

7. How much weight should be given to previous arbitrators’ decisions? Explain.

8. What will the arbitrator decide? Why?

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Law, Privacy, And Digital Data

Please write one full page in APA style in response to these questions.

A large American multinational corporation wants to establish a telephone and email hotline for employees to report wrongdoing within the company. The company has offices in the European Union and wants to ensure that it avoids violations of E.U. data protection laws.

1. What steps can the company take to increase the likelihood that its hotline reporting system remains in compliance? 

2. What other compliance concerns might the company leadership consider regarding operating offshore?  Take into account local laws, regulations, culture, politics, 

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Instructions: Criminal Justice Administration


You are the police chief of Anywhere, U.S., a mid-sized community. You have worked with your organization to adapt to the changes faced after 9/11. Now you are faced with the closing of a major plant in your town. Almost 1,000 men and women are now unemployed, and foreclosed signs are popping up everywhere. People are forced to move into cheaper rental housing, and there is a social disorganization crisis. Mixed race and age neighborhoods report higher crime rates, vandalism reports are rising, and DUI arrests are the highest in the state.

Your agency also struggles with low morale because they see their neighbors losing everything they have worked for. You must now work with internal and external forces to help your agency and town endure this economic crisis.

Your first task is to develop a PowerPoint presentation of approximately 15 slides that detail the problems with the rising crime rates. Use articles and literature to explain the impact of the economic downturn, citing all sources in APA format. Your audience includes the mayor, superintendent of schools, and both business and cultural leaders in the community.

Include the following:

  • An analysis of the rising crime rates in your town. What are they, and why are they related (or not)?
  • An internal impact analysis. How do the crime rate and economy impact your officers?
  • Four recommendations—2 with community impact and 2 with internal agency impact.
  • A plan of action if these are approved.
  • A list of necessary resources (monetary and otherwise).

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Final Comparison Patch Adams Vs. One Flew Over the Cuckoo′S Nest

Final comparison Patch Adams vs. One Flew over the Cuckoo′s Nest (movies)

The films, “Patch Adams” and “One Flew over the Cuckoo′s Nest” are similar and differ in various ways. The characters in both movies take either unofficial or official professional roles. In the “One Flew over the Cuckoo′s Nest,” the most formal professional is Nurse Ratched, while in the “Patch Adams, ” the Dean and the psychiatrist take the official positions. These characters are portrayed in the movies as villains as they benefit from their authority for their fulfillment instead of helping their patients.

Some of the characters in both films are portrayed as insensitive and selfish. In “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” Nurse Ratched is depicted as under-involved. She seems to express some psychopathic traits such as detachedness, emotionless and insensitivity to the needs of her patients. She can be equated to a robot. Because of Nurse Ratched’s lack of understanding and empathy, patients feel poorly served, abandoned and betrayed. Similarly, the Dean and the doctors in Patch Adams are insensitive to the needs of their patients and value their prestige. Unlike Adam, who calls patients by names, the Dean and physicians refer to patients by their number. The Dean wants to be viewed as a person of esteem.

The two fundamental differences between these two characters in “Patch Adams and One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” are that in the former movie, Adam establishes a happy and confident mood for patients. In the latter, Nurse Ratched, a meaning miserable, an anagram for wretched causes negative impact on her patients. This sole distinction makes all the difference. 

The impact of ‘One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ film to the students and society is that it demonstrates that psychiatric hospitals are similar to prisons, inhabited by patients with no autonomy and robotic staff without empathy. Methods like ECT and restraint are sensationalized as portrayed as control means. The ‘Patch Adams,’ highlights the significance of humanity and humor in health care while describing medics as people with human flaws and complexities.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Local Disaster Risk Reduction

Local Disaster Risk Reduction

Important factors to support Local Disaster Risk Reduction

Disasters occur due to other causes rather than natural causes, such as social, economic, political, and cultural factors. The factors people inhabit are areas and regions prone to natural hazards due to the different aspects of social, economic, and cultural environments. For instance, people are forced by difficult situations such as poverty to settle in hazardous areas such as flood plains and mountain slopes where floods, landslides, and earthquakes are common. Other factors especially affecting the political environment are the distribution of resources such as education, health services, income, and important information. There is a lot of discrimination in many communities in developing countries, especially on the issues of welfare and social protection. Disasters occur due to both natural and human action and contribute to the major problems related to famine, diseases such as HIV-AIDS, wars, drought, and many others. The potential of various groups of people to exposure to some of natural disasters and hazards constitutes the disaster risk that depends on the social and political systems of the community. The vulnerability of different groups to hazard exposure helps to understand disasters by looking at the political, economic, social, and cultural systems. The important factors to support local disaster reduction in the community and places with risks of natural hazards are political, economic, social, and cultural practices.

There is a big link between poverty, vulnerability, and disasters such the poorest people are always the victim as their poverty leads to their vulnerability. Preparing those people will make them cope with disasters in case they occur. Due to climatic change, countries need to adopt Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR )due to the adverse effects of the occurrence. Organizations such as Practical Action works with various communities to help them cope with future hazards by taking measures such as disaster risk management, and food security. The organization uses the research approach and its experience in disaster management for many years to help people cope with disasters especially in the developing countries such as South Asia, Peru, and Africa. The body also secures and sustains livelihoods in communities with high poverty levels by reducing their susceptibility to disaster. Practical Action works with the humanitarian agencies to help families, communities, and local markets to come out of the crises and cope with future disaster threats. The organization works by involving the survivors off various disasters in the decision-making and management of the resources. The world’s poorest and marginalized communities suffer from climate change compared to the well up communities. These people depend on natural resources for agriculture and other means of production.

Climate change affects the living conditions of vulnerable people especially in developing countries as a result of global warming contributed by human activities such as cultivation methods. Some cultural beliefs such as disasters are a punishment from God, or other supreme being prevents people from taking action to avoid more disasters.  Organizations like the UNDP should always offer education to the vulnerable communities and change their evolutionary behaviours especially the ones touching on religious beliefs. Other factors that increase the vulnerability of communities to disasters are personality, upbringing, and level of education, peer pressure and many more. For countries to support DRR, the government should work closely with charitable organizations such as the Red Cross to reduce the influence of culture on disaster occurrences. The beliefs that it is the God’s ill for some disasters such as earthquakes and floods to happen are not healthy for DRR and DRM as people cannot engage in activities that reduce the risks of disaster occurrences.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) aims to identify and reduce disaster risks by dealing with socio-economic vulnerabilities to the disasters. Governance is an important factor in addressing the occurrence of disasters through DRR and DRM especially in the third-world countries. The government is very important in the DRR approach to disaster management as it is one of the main actors. The government should always ensure that its citizens are safe, and there is equality in resource allocation to all communities. The government also is the main coordinator of DRR projects through the formulation of policies and programmes through legislation.  The government is also mandated to ensure protection of the rights of its citizens through disaster prevention and early warnings of any impending disasters such as floods. Disaster management organisations such as UNDP and BRAC prefer working in environments where the rights of the citizens are respected and protected.

Social factors also contribute to occurrence and reoccurrence of disasters depending on the organisation of communities and the social classes. For countries to achieve Disaster Risk reduction, it must do away with social classes and bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. Some people fail to protect themselves believing that someone like the government or charitable organizations will come to their help. For example the in Kenya, people are warned to vacate the lowlands and avoid living in mountainous areas but fail to take action only to call the government when their homes floods or whenever there are landslides. The international community should always emphasize on the necessity of local ownership of the disaster risk reduction (DRR) through the local governments. Policy makers need to support the local actors to manage natural disasters by spreading awareness of the environmental risks facing the communities.  The leaders and the NGOs should work with mayors and community leaders to enable active participation of the local community groups in reducing the risks due to natural disaster. Consequences and social outcomes of projects for poverty alleviation, community development, and reduction of disaster vulnerability depend on the social impact assessment.

 Social factors are human populations or private actions that can affect the way of living, working, and the relation of humans to each other as the members of the society. The way a society live determines the possibility of occurrence of disasters and their management. There is a big relationship between vulnerability, disasters and hazards especially on the deep-rooted factors in different societies, which can alleviate or increase the seriousness of a disaster. Some societies or groups of people lack basic services at the household level, and others face exposure to unsafe conditions. For instance people who construct shanty houses on sloppy and hilly lands especially in urban centres increasing the risk of disasters such as floods and landslides. Disaster management through DRR should always aim at involving communities at risk in risk management and reduction of vulnerability through their projects. The civil society and the public authorities will also play an important especially in coordination and mobilization of the local communities.

Political factors may also influence the effectiveness of DRR especially in the developing countries here politicians engage in corrupt activities such as land grabbing. When leaders, politicians, and the wealthy class take all the good land, the marginalized communities end up settling in disaster-prone areas such as in the slopes and dry areas. The countries should fight corruption by the political class and allocate land and resources equality to the communities. Politics can also limit the local ownership of DRR if politics takes the centre stage during the implementation of DRR projects. There are some officials who hold positions for their interests and embezzle fund meant for disaster management and may use the resources to win votes from a few individuals. Countries need to monitor the DRR projects closely to prevent political interferences especially if they disagree with the local leaders on implementation of the DRR projects. Some political leaders will also avoid dealing with some disaster threats waiting for the next campaign period to use it a campaign tool. To avoid delays, NGOs and other international charitable organizations should monitor DRR projects and avoid political involvement of any nature. DRR is mostly part of the political debate in many countries, and its effectiveness depends on who wins the motion. Some politician’s ill use it for their political interest and limits the participation of the locals in managing disasters. Consequently, the communities do not understand their role in alleviating some disasters such as drought and famines brought about by climate changes. Some local leaders might fail to implement policies from their competitors or continue with previous projects after new elections. For DRR projects to work, politics should never play any part in the implementation of the projects dealing with disaster management and risk reduction.

Economic factors contribute to the occurrence of natural disasters and the vulnerability of some communities in depending on the distribution of the resources and agricultural activities of the country. Countries with a large wealth disparity expose the poor to deadly disasters such as landslides, as they live in areas prone to disasters. The people’s economic activities such as farming, mining, and grazing may accelerate the occurrence of natural disasters such as floods due to soil erosion. Due to the disparity in resource distribution, these people have no other option and have to cope with the frequency of the disasters as they await government intervention. DRR approach aims at bridging the gap by involving the local community in self-protection during disasters and offering permanent and long-lasting solutions to the occurrence of disasters. Understanding the economic factors in any country will assist NGOs and other organizations to manage disasters and alleviate poverty in many countries.


Disasters occur due to other causes rather than the natural causes such social, economic, political, and cultural factors. Disasters occur due to both natural and human action and contribute to the major problems related to the famine, diseases such as HIV-AIDS, wars, drought and many others. The world’s poorest and marginalized communities suffer from climate change compared to the well up communities. These people depend on natural resources for agriculture and other means of production. Social factors also contribute to occurrence and reoccurrence of disasters depending on the organisation of communities and the social classes. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) aims at identifying and reducing the risks of disaster by dealing with socio-economic vulnerabilities to the disasters. The people’s economic activities such as farming, mining, and grazing may accelerate the occurrence of natural disasters such as floods due to soil erosion.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Public Administration

Public Administration

The Brown decision refers to a historic ruling in the case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which nine U.S. Supreme Court jurors unanimously ruled against racial segregation in any public school in the country. The landmark ruling directed states from across the U.S. to ensure equal protection to every student and person in and out of educational facilities. Although the decision did not specify when all the states should desegregate, it serves as the reference point for present-day civil rights. In particular, it was the first historic ruling that went a long way in rejecting the repressive and discriminative doctrine of the “separate but equal,” which was established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

While some have argued that the Brown decision has failed to achieve its mission, the ruling marked a turning point among civil rights activists in the U.S. because it is the outcome that continues to inspire freedom rides and civil rights legislations today (Strauss, 2014). Although the decision applied to U.S. public schools, the equal-protection clause now applies to private institutions of learning, workplaces, and places of worship, parks, and other social settings. Modern human rights activists now advocate equal protection to migrants, minorities, and women. In other words, the 1954-ruling did not only inspire the late 1950s and early 1960s civil rights movement, but its effect has so far trickled down to the 21st century. Concisely, the ever-increasing freedom and rights of all Americans and people worldwide enjoy can be traced back to the Brown decision.


Brown vBoard of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Strauss, V. (2014). How, after 60 years, Brown v. Board of Education succeeded – and didn’t. Washington Post, April. 24, 2014.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

Cases Study

Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

A. Analysis/Significance

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to determine whether the decision by the Circuit Court to condemn, as well as compensate the plaintiff, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Of the eight justices, seven affirmed the ruling by the lower Court. The holding is of great importance because this is the first case in the American judicial system’s history to have integrated the Takings Clause of the Bills of Rights into a court ruling against a state.

B. Reasoning/Rationale

In its reasoning, the Court was guided by the rule that the clause’s primary role is to forbid any given states from depriving private owners of their legally owned property without abiding by the Due Process. The Court argued that the approval of the fifth article in April 1982 allowed the appropriate use of private property, including a right-of-way, while at the same time, providing that there will be no compensation for railroads. On the other hand, Justice Brewer dissented the ruling, arguing that the decision to compensate Quincy Railroad a mere $1 was unfair and nominal. The concurring opinion followed that the Court’s decision paved the way for even better interpretation of state statutes regarding private property and rules or laws governing streets, alleys, highways, and streets.

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

A. Analysis/Significance

Having ruled in favor of the 1923 Congressional Filled Milk Ac, the Court’s decision has so far created the doctrine of the preferred freedom. Moreover, as a result of this case, there is increased recognition among dietitians, the public, and scientists of the importance attached to the scrutiny of whole milk and other foods to prevent diseases and improve public health.

B. Reasoning/Rationale

Guided by the issue of whether the Act violated the 5th Amendment’s Due Clause, the Supreme Court held the lower Court’s ruling in a 5-1 vote. Equally important, the Court followed a clear rule that provides that shipping filled milk remains a permissible commercial regulation that is subjected to the 5th Amendment restrictions. Drawing from the Hebe Co. v. Shaw case, the Court reasoned that the newly introduced Act was consistent with the 5th Amendment’s clause on the regulation of interstate commerce. In concurrence, Justice Black contended that the Act of desiccating, condensing, drying, evaporating, and powdering or concentrating skimmed milk and milk cream constitute the prohibited filled milk category.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

A. Analysis/Significance

In the search to determine whether Lucas, the petitioner, was entitled to receive fair compensation as provided in the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, six of the eight sitting judges reversed the ruling by the lower Court. Most importantly, the case outcome led to the establishment of the modern-day and widely adopted total takings test.

B. Reasoning/Rationale

Before reaching the above landmark ruling, the Court reasoned by following the rule that any given regulations become a taking when they go a long way in stripping property of its economic value, especially when the current or existing state law does not consider the use of the property a nuisance. For this reason, the Court ordered a total taking analysis based on three things. First, determining the extent of harm to adjacent private properties, public lands, and posed by the proposed development or activity. Second, the social value and suitability of the claimant’s proposed activities. Third, the relative ease involved in avoiding the alleged harm. This reasoning was meant to establish whether the use of the property would be a nuisance.

In contrast, the dissenting judges opposed the reasoning by arguing that it was erroneous for the Court to declare that the property in question lost all its economic value. At the same time, they were convinced that the takings jurisprudence followed an ad-hock factual inquiry.

Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)

A. Analysis/Significance    

In response to the issue at hand, which revolved around the possibility of New London City violating the Takings Clause following its seizure and sale of private property for public use, the Court held the lower Court’s ruling. The justices supported their decision by arguing that private development represented or qualified as a provision of the Takings Clause on public use, which means New London did not breach the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause. The importance of the case’s outcome created a new rule on the criteria for seizing private property, implying that the society needs throughout the country vary from jurisprudence to another.

B. Reasoning/Rationale

In their judgment, the Justices followed a given rationale governed by the rule that, under the Takings Clause, the promotion of economic development remains a widely accepted traditional function of any given state government. The Court argued that the seizure by New London did not involve the use of the private property for personal gains, but rather public economic development, which the Takings Clause supports. The concurring judges did not find any breach of the clause as the properties in question were used for the public good. On the other hand, the dissenting justices did not object to the ultimate purpose the takings could serve. Still, they insisted that the defendant failed to demonstrate how each economic development goal would be realized, making the takings unconstitutional.


Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Law and Social Equity in Public Administration

Public Administration

Law and Social Equity in Public Administration

Social equity is the pillar of public administration and determines public administrators’ role in addressing inclusion.  It elevates public administration by giving it scrutiny. However, regardless of the struggles and integral aspects that the concept has in public administration, the law acts as its measure throughout its application.  For instance, the law develops velar assessment measurements and evaluations that are important in validating the stewardship of resources as well as ensuring that the interest of the people is met with the outlined bureaucracy.  According to Frederickson (2018), social equity involves a commitment to promote justice and fairness in public policy development, which required dispensation of law to reduce instances of confrontations that might be realized.

Similarly, equality, fairness, and justice relevant to the public administration tents require value consideration, which is based on applying the law through social justice consideration. As a result, a considerable portion of the law is needed in the discretionary implementation and interpretation of public administration through adherence to social equity.  Similarly, legal insight plays a vital role in the general admiration.  For instance, it ensures that the judicial authorities have followed the best approach in administering their powers, and the flow of operations originates from democratic institutions.

According to Johansen (2019), legal insight ensures legitimacy, accountability, and transparency in the public administration. These concepts play a vital role in ensuring that the public administration is coherent and operates based on the outlined principles. Interestingly, legal insight provides that the actions being done within the public administration set up are based on useful guidelines, and all actions explain the relationship between democratic societies and the legal authority.


Frederickson, H. G. (2018). Public administration and social equity. Diversity And Affirmative Action In Public Service50, 5.

Johansen, M. (2019). Understanding Social Equity in Public Administration. In Social Equity in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 13-23). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Proof of Intent to Discriminate

Proof of Intent to Discriminate

Proof of Intent to Discriminate as a Constitutional Concern

In most workplaces around the world and mostly the United States, instances of racial discrimination have been viewed as a serious concern. Intent discrimination has, however, been considered a severe issue in constitutional dispensations as claims have proved that most employees have to feel like victims of such actions.  As a result, the proof of intentional discrimination has been more critical to the constitution than statutory outlines.  Discriminatory intent claim and other vices associated with it alleges that an intended treatment of a person in a different way can cause them harm of various kinds.  The constitution, therefore, outlines intrinsic correspondences and prohibitions such as barring any form of discrimination related to national origin, color or race, services, and financial aid. Interestingly, proof of intent to discrimination is also associated with reduced express classification among employees (Zimmer & Sullivan, 2017).  All recipients under this rationale are victims of harm, and thus roper constitutional measures are needed to ascertain their credibility.

According to Gold (2018), the constitutional’s pluralistic view of the proof of intent to discrimination is in the plausible theory, and unavoidable.  The current doctrinal apparatus that can be used to discover discriminatory intent also has hidden regressive effects and, in most cases, are silently and subtly moving evidentiary burdens between the plaintiffs and the defendants. As a result, the result shows that the public’s perception towards the case is jarred. Therefore, the best and only solution is to have a solid constitutional body to govern and make current arrangements that can be used to address the issues. Overall, most intents to discrimination are associated with a lack of circumstantial evidence that can be used to treat them with, and the only solution is to formulate frameworks that can reduce the impact on the general public.


Gold, M. E. (2018). Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination. Cornell University Press.

Zimmer, M. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2017). Cases and materials on employment discrimination. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now

Irrebuttable Presumption

The term irrebuttable presumption is a widely used legal concept, which means that a statement can be considered to be an absolute fact which is not subject to challenge whatsoever. Outside the legal frame, such statements are just regarded as facts a case example being that “Earth is round, the sun is hot, or water is wet.” Markedly, it is hard to contradict these statements since they represent what has been considered correct since immemorial. Back to the legal framework, comments such as “A five-year-old child can’t commit a felony” can pass as an irrebuttable truth in a court of law and one can be acquitted solely based on that fact. However, the primary question is whether these irrebuttable facts are correct beyond any reasonable doubt.

Notably, in the modern courts, irrebuttable presumptions are often accepted as part of the statements provided that they don’t sound like pure fiction. Also, the comments have to be as accurate as possible in order to seen as a reality by the jury (He, 2018). Markedly, any factual statement is treated as an irrebuttable presumption as long as people are convinced it is true. This is different from the rebuttable assumption whereby a comment is considered to be valid until proven otherwise. For irrebuttable presumptions to be viable in the court of law, they should not continuously restate facts that are already known in the public domain. A case example is when a case involves a murder charge. The irrebuttable presumption that the body is dead will not add any weight to the case since it brings no new evidence. In this scenario, the goal is not to prove that the body is dead but rather, to determine whether it was murdered or not.


He, J. (2018). The Categories of Presumption. In Methodology of Judicial Proof and Presumption (pp. 191-216). Springer, Singapore.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Order your Paper Now