Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Waived
The issue here is: NYSUT and the UFT tell tenured members that they do
not have the "right" to rely on any rule, law, or regulation which may
be contained in Education Law 3020-a, only Article 21G, and the
memorandum of agreements (MOA) signed by the UFT and the Department.
I started questioning this in 2005, and continue to do so. How can Constitutional rights be waived?
See the case below.
Justia.com Opinion Summary:
Boaz began working for FedEx in 1997, under an agreement that stated: “To the extent the law allows an employee to bring legal action against Federal Express Corporation, I agree to bring that complaint within the time prescribed by law or 6 months from the date of the event forming the basis of my lawsuit, whichever expires first.” She began took on additional responsibilities, previously handled by a male employee, without corresponding compensation, 2004-2008. Boaz sued FedEx in 2009, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). The district court held that, although the claims were timely under the statutes, they were barred by the agreement. The Sixth Circuit reversed, based on Supreme Court precedent prohibiting an employee from waiving rights under those laws.
PDF file
I started questioning this in 2005, and continue to do so. How can Constitutional rights be waived?
See the case below.
Justia.com Opinion Summary:
Boaz began working for FedEx in 1997, under an agreement that stated: “To the extent the law allows an employee to bring legal action against Federal Express Corporation, I agree to bring that complaint within the time prescribed by law or 6 months from the date of the event forming the basis of my lawsuit, whichever expires first.” She began took on additional responsibilities, previously handled by a male employee, without corresponding compensation, 2004-2008. Boaz sued FedEx in 2009, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). The district court held that, although the claims were timely under the statutes, they were barred by the agreement. The Sixth Circuit reversed, based on Supreme Court precedent prohibiting an employee from waiving rights under those laws.
PDF file
No comments:
Post a Comment