BOE facing two federal suits – Daily Southerner

Response: I remember there has been some bus issues for years. Some folks didn’t want to drive school buses so they went and got doctor’s notes. But guess who the majority of them were? Recently the school system changed their policy and started the process over. But those folks with real disabilities got caught up in the system so therefore they had to leave the school system since they couldn’t drive the bus. It is sad because some folks really screwed it up for some folks. I just wonder could the school system had found a better way to deal with the busing issue. Well can’t wait to see how the lawsuits unfold.

TARBORO — Diahanna Woods and Donnie Atkinson, former employees of Edgecombe County Public Schools, filed lawsuits against the Edgecombe County Board of Education after they were terminated. Woods filed her complaint on May 30, 2013, and Atkinson filed his complaint on Aug. 28, 2013, in the federal court in Greenville.

Woods and Atkinson claim they were fired because of their failure to obtain a Commercial Drivers License (CDL), and that they had medical disabilities which prevented them from driving a school bus. They cited the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as grounds for their claims. (Source: Read more)

Advertisements

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches – Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Police officers may enter and search a home without a warrant as long as one occupant consents, even if another resident has previously objected, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a Los Angeles case.

The 6-3 ruling, triggered by a Los Angeles Police Department arrest in 2009, gives authorities more leeway to search homes without obtaining a warrant, even when there is no emergency.

The majority, led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., said police need not take the time to get a magistrate’s approval before entering a home in such cases. But dissenters, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the decision would erode protections against warrantless home searches. The court had previously held that such protections were at the "very core" of the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. (Source: Read more)