Mamie Mannehs Arrest - Case Study Example

Business Law Questions The case of Mamie Manneh’s arrest for consuming monkey meat poses a conflict that could be contested on the basis ofthe violation of Manneh’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prevents the Government from making any laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, being a Federal Government agency, is required not to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Manneh’s habit of eating monkey meat is a part of her religious tradition and the eating of bush meat is a standard religious practice for the African tribe Manneh belongs to, because they consider it as nourishment for their souls. As opposed to this the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency has a duty to protect wild animals so that they are not endangered or made extinct and have arrested Manneh on charges of smuggling monkey meat. Her arrest may be in violation of her first amendment right to freedom of religion and the action of the federal agency amounts to prohibition of that right. Moreover, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s, equal protection must be provided to all citizens, therefore protection must be provided to Manneh’s religious practices in the same manner that others’ religious rights and practices are respected. A strict scrutiny test will be applied by the Courts in assessing violations of fundamental constitutional rights and the right to freedom of religion is one such constitutional right. Over and above this, Manneh also belongs to a minority race which will further invoke the strict scrutiny doctrine. It may however be possible for the federal Agency to demonstrate a compelling state interest in this matter, since the preservation of wildlife and the containment of sources of diseases such as HIV and SARS may be adequate justification for their action in curtailing a harmful religious practice. And 2: DiMaggio could be charged under the provisions of criminal law of battery because he has hit and threatened his girl friend. He can also be charged for aggravated assault for slapping her several times and hurting her. He will also be guilty of homicidal violence and intent for his actions in almost burning his girlfriend’s face and threatening to shove the burning lighter down her throat. These criminal provisions in the law can be exercised against DiMaggio, because it will be possible to establish the mens rea of intent to harm and even kill his girlfriend, according to his threat. Apart from these criminal provisions however, his girlfriend could also file a civil case against him for the tort of battery for his actions in threatening her and causing her harm. She will be able to claim damages against him for the fear and stress that he has caused her. She can also file a personal injury suit against him to seek recoveries for the injuries she has sustained through his physical assault on her and the trauma she has suffered from almost getting her face burned. She can seek monetary and pecuniary damages, apart from she can also claim recoveries from him for any hospital or other expenses that she has incurred in connection with getting herself treated for the injuries and wounds that he has inflicted on her. Another cause of action that his girlfriend can use is also intentional tort, because DiMaggio has deliberately and intentionally engaged in such actions with the specific purpose of threatening, intimidating and harming his girlfriend. The intentional infliction of emotional distress is evident in this case and Di Maggio’s girlfriend can also seek compensatory damages for mental trauma and distress. Ans 3: The Fair Labor Standards Act mandates fair and equitable treatment for workers. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the worker will be entitled to upto 12 weeks of unpaid leave because he has a serious injury and health problem. Under the Occupational health and Safety Act, the worker cannot be discharged from his job because he seeks to exercise his rights under the Act. In reference to the carelessness shown by the co-worker, it will be possible for the injured worker to join together with other workers and engage in collective bargaining to ensure that a set of safety measures and protection from risk is introduced at the workplace. Since the passage of the Norris La Guardia Act, it is illegal for employers to prevent workers joining together in a union and pressing for their rights. The Wagner Act also allows for labor to unionize and bargain collectively. The worker will also have rights under the fair labor practices mandated by the Labor Standards Board. The fact that the worker has warned his supervisor about the carelessness of the co-worker and she had taken no action to redress the dangerous situation will go against the organization. The worker has suffered the injuries mainly as a result of his supervisor’s failure to take action and therefore he may be entitled to recover damages for the injuries he has sustained, since it will be deemed a failure of the responsibility of management to provide a safe and fair working environment for its employees. Moreover, the Company may also be held to be guilty of the tort of negligence in failing to address a situation where the dangers had already been identified. It appears likely that the Company itself may also be held vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the worker which were caused by the negligence of the co-worker. The worker will also have the option to claim disability allowances during the period that he is recovering from his injury and cannot be discharged from his work during the eight week period that he is away from work. Read More