FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, et al., Petitioners v. STANMORE CAWTHON Facts Stanmore Cawthon Cooper was a pilot who contracted HIV during his time in service for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); at the time he was diagnosed the FAA did not issue medical certificates, which are required as a precondition to operate aircraft to persons with HIV. Subsequently Mr. Cooper applied to the Social Security Administration to receive benefits based on his diagnosis and thereafter renewed his pilot certificate six times without revealing his medical status or any medications he was taking before being discovered by the government. The Department of Transportation (DOT) initiated a joint criminal investigation with the Social Security Administration to target medically unfit individuals who had obtained medical certificates. The investigation included exchange of information between both agencies, specifically the DOT released a sheet with the names of licensed pilots and in return the SSA provided a spreadsheet with the names of the individuals who were receiving benefits. Cooper’s name appeared on the list the SSA provided along with the names of every pilot who was receiving benefits, which led the DOT to target the investigation in which Cooper admitted to have intentionally withheld medical information from the FAA each time he renewed his medical certificate. As a result of Cooper’s confessions the FAA revoked his pilot’s license and was accused of intentionally lying to a government agency, an accusation to which he pleaded guilty, resulting in a fine and a period of probation. Cooper felt that the actions taken by the FAA were not only unfair to his person but more importantly unlawful, which brought him to file... ... middle of paper ... ...vernment the plaintiff was fairly warned before hand that the agency did not issue medical certificates to individuals with HIV, instead he intentionally withheld information for six consecutive renewals knowing the consequences. On the other hand, in defense of the plaintiff, it was unlawful for his information to have been released so as to cause intentional harm, in which case the government is at fault. References "FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Et Al., Petitioners v. STANMORE CAWTHON COOPER." Lexis Nexis Academic. [U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers' Edition], n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ "THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a -- As Amended." THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a -- As Amended. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm
While the widely exposed and discussed trials of WorldCom's and Tyco's top executives were all over the media, one of the most interesting cases of securities fraud was happening without any public acknowledgement.
EEOC v. Consolidated Service System, 989 F.2d 233 (Cir. 1993), as cited by Bennett-Alexander, D.D. and Hartman, L. P. (2014) at 195.
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
“NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).” Case Law. Find Law, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
" Schenck v. United States. Chicago-kent College of law , n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
§ 2000e-2 unlawful employment practices. Ms. Carson alleges that Mr. Hamilton administers an exam that has an adverse impact on women. Ms. Carson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC sent Mr. Hamilton a letter indicating that Ms. Carson filed a charge against him and that the charge was filed on October 12, 2015.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Gaudin, Sharon. "The Perils of Privacy." CNN. Cable Network News, 29 Dec. 1999. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.