SCUM’s Civil Rights Violation claim is suitably expressed out of the unfavorable manner in which Ruth treats the entity. This is when the group seeks for a permit, to hold its annual Mother’s Day meeting. Ruth, being personally offended by the group’s stated manifesto, with regard to unwed mothers, has on various occasions acted in a biased manner to the same group. Being a city employee of the parks department, her discretion is allowed with regard to the amount to be paid as fee permits. The range of permits from $25 to $100 therefore puts the 2007 application, after Ruth’s prior refusal, within the acceptable range. However, it is her subsequent 2008 permit fee that was out of touch with reality, hence portraying a sort of individual arbitrariness. By insisting that the fee be pegged at $10,000, it is clear that Ruth indeed was unfair in her discretion. This results in SCUM suing Ruth in federal court, making a claim to its civil rights violation. Through the three part test, SCUM’s legal representative, may prove Ruth’s biased nature, regarding the aspects of Deprivation and Color of Law. This entails the plaintiff’s establishment of: - the defendant’s (Ruth) acting under ‘color of law’, thereby causing the plaintiff (SCUM) deprivation of its right of annual assembly, as provided for by the American Constitution. This is provable, as even the mayor had previously intervened, and yet the defendant did not change her attitude, even in her professional duty of public service.
The issue at hand pertains to a petitioner John Erhard breaking his leg while moving into his new residence, as provided by his employer (Broken O Ranch). This is before his first work shift, thereby providing reason for the respondent’s denial of the petitioner’s claim to worker compensation benefits. Due to his nature of being a new employee, he was thus not eligible for the aforementioned benefits especially as this covers only those actively engaged in some form of employment. Furtherance is whether he was eligible or not to attorney fees, costs and penalty, with regard to the suit at hand.
The petitioner by way of not being an active employee by the time of the accident was therefore not legally entitled to official employer compensation. His injury, sustained during his relocation, was outside official cover, as he had yet to start work within the ranch. Due to that fact that he did not present vital documents for employer review and verification, in addition to partially filling out the Application for Employment form and not signing it, he thus was not officially an employee of the ranch.
The ruling that was to follow, through its interpretation, presented the lack of official employment functionality and capacity, with regard to the claimant, Mr. Erhard. His First Report of Injury claim being denied, his seeking of legal interpretation provided for his claim’s dismissal, based on the scope and course of his employment record. Due to the lack of completing the employment documentation in its entirety, as well as presenting the same to the ranch’s management, Erhard did not fulfill the criteria for official employment. This thus provided reason for the insurer’s refusal for compensation, as the claimant was not employed within the prevailing meanings of § 39-71-118, MCA.
In the end, three issues aforementioned were cited as being proof of the lack of Erhard’s legality in seeking compensation. First is that Erhard as the claimant, was not entitled to any form of compensation, by way of accepting liability. Secondly, is that the ranch’s insurer (Liberty), is not liable for the payment of any form of benefits and bills. Lastly, is the fact that Erhard is therefore not entitled to any costs i.e. attorney fees, or even a penalty with regard to the case filing.
In my opinion, the first two are attributable to the fact that he had not completed his registration/ paperwork in its entirety i.e. signing, thorough filling of all information, as well as handing the same to the ranch’s management. Thus he was not legally an employee of the ranch, despite his presence within the farm’s property. Regarding to the third issue, I am of the view that the reason primarily provided is effective, especially in regard to the prevailing contexts present. Erhard is not the prevailing party, and thus needs state input, through provision of a counsel.