|
LeschNyhan posted:Yes, talk to a lawyer. I'm in BC so I don't know much about tenancy disputes in the Texas of the North, but here are some numbers to get you started. Thanks! I really wish I could use the student legal assistance but they don't do the Court of Queen's bench or any civil things over $25,000.
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Jyrraeth posted:Thanks! I really wish I could use the student legal assistance but they don't do the Court of Queen's bench or any civil things over $25,000. Jesus if you've got a tenancy claim over 25k to defend yeah wow you need a lawyer. BC does most tenancy stuff through a tribunal so the students here can handle it but I guess Alberta really is the wild west.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:Jesus if you've got a tenancy claim over 25k to defend yeah wow you need a lawyer. After talking to the lawyer referral people I now know that its more on the "personal injury" side of things. Summing all the dollar amounts on the papers it comes to over $100k. But also involves tenancy, too? I do not know and hope I'm being vague enough that I don't get in trouble. Myself and the landlords are on the defendant side and the plaintiff was also a tenant.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
nm posted:Actually, the chair could be an ADA thing. Thats what I meant - its not discriminatory on its face; its only discriminatory if they don't make reasonable accommodations for people who need chairs. LeschNyhan posted:Texas of the North I like this.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Jyrraeth posted:After talking to the lawyer referral people I now know that its more on the "personal injury" side of things. Summing all the dollar amounts on the papers it comes to over $100k. But also involves tenancy, too? I do not know and hope I'm being vague enough that I don't get in trouble. Myself and the landlords are on the defendant side and the plaintiff was also a tenant. Do you have insurance? If so, your insurance may handle the attorney part (make 100% sure). You do, 100%, need a lawyer for a a six figure lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
nm posted:Do you have insurance? If so, your insurance may handle the attorney part (make 100% sure). Yes, goddamn, and you need it right now. Also, does renter's insurance ever cover personal liability?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I like this. AB has cattle, oil, guns, they mostly hate foreigners, and they even have a fuckin' stampede every year.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
nm posted:Do you have insurance? If so, your insurance may handle the attorney part (make 100% sure). I don't have insurance, and I really wish I had some.  past me. The landlords, however, do. I've called 2/3 of the lawyers recommended for me (and the third shortly) by the Alberta Lawyer referral people and I for sure have a 30 min consult on Monday. Its unsurprisingly difficult to contact lawyers on a sunny Friday afternoon.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yes, goddamn, and you need it right now. Yes, at least in California.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Chasiubao posted:AB has cattle, oil, guns, they mostly hate foreigners, and they even have a fuckin' stampede every year. Sounds awesome. I'm gonna visit once ya'll put all those fires out. Now that I think about it, I knew this chick who's family moved from Calgary to Houston because her dad was in the oil business.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Sounds awesome. I'm gonna visit once ya'll put all those fires out. Why do you think Teddy Cruz fits in so well in Texas?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
nm posted:Why do you think Teddy Cruz fits in so well in Texas? This kind of makes me think of Mariner Valley Martians but they seem like alright people where Ted Cruz is a pustule on the dick of humanity.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Also, does renter's insurance ever cover personal liability? I'm too lazy to look it up for sure but I'm fairly certain mine does up to like $1 million or $2 million or something.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
What's the backstory? Someone get hurt at your apartment?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
My brother has some debt that went to collections. The debt collector is calling me for info on him, about once a day for the past few months. I'm not going to give them info, he's easy enough to find. How can I get them to stop calling me? Is there a phrase I need to mention, maybe cite a state/federal law? Do I need to record the conversation? I'm in Ohio.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Molybdenum posted:My brother has some debt that went to collections. The debt collector is calling me for info on him, about once a day for the past few months. I'm not going to give them info, he's easy enough to find. How can I get them to stop calling me? Is there a phrase I need to mention, maybe cite a state/federal law? Do I need to record the conversation? I take it you've done the requisite "this is not my debt, do not call me, again" thing, already?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
null_pointer posted:I take it you've done the requisite "this is not my debt, do not call me, again" thing, already? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
There was a thread about loving with debt collectors for fun and profit.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What's the backstory? Someone get hurt at your apartment? Its kind of a complicated story, but its an issue around snow clearing and the other tenant slipped and fell (  ). She decided to skip claiming insurance, as far as I know, and went to litigation. The whole story is pretty interesting, but its definitely something I don't want on this somethingawful dot com.  I'm so mad at myself for not having renter's insurance I could've gotten a bundle deal on it when I renewed my car insurance last year! I was broke but man.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Molybdenum posted:My brother has some debt that went to collections. The debt collector is calling me for info on him, about once a day for the past few months. I'm not going to give them info, he's easy enough to find. How can I get them to stop calling me? Is there a phrase I need to mention, maybe cite a state/federal law? Do I need to record the conversation? Did they tell you that they are a debt collector or did you infer it? Is it a first party or third party collector? If it's a third party, and they told your they are a debt collector, then they prolly violated the FDCPA
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the right to freedom of religious belief and expression, subject to reasonable limits etc. etc. In a Newfoundland Supreme Court decision (Re CPL 1988), that court held that "A child does not have a religious belief until it reaches an age of reason. It is true the parents have a right to bring their child up in the religious persuasion of their choice. They have a right to persuade that child to continue in that religious faith when the age of reason is reached and thereafter to majority. The child may or may not accept the religious beliefs of its parents or guardians". This decision had to do with giving a blood transfusion to a JW infant; the Court held that it was of course acceptable and whether it was a violation of the kid's right to freedom of religion or not, his right to exist trumped it. Might that mean that a child does not have the right to freedom of religion, since a child is not competent to profess a faith? If so, does that make it impossible to violate a child's freedom of religion? Certainly his parents have that right, and that right includes raising him in the faith. Just for fun: Supposing one day the parents decided to not be religious anymore. Might he sue successfully?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Sue for what? What are the damages?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
In a human rights tribunal let's say, for abrogating his right to freedom of religion. (I would think not, because a parent must necessarily violate lots of a kid's rights in the process of raising him)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:
That seems to be out of line with the case that I only remember as AC http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/girl-s-forced-blood-transfusion-didn-t-violate-rights-top-court-1.858660
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Sue for what? What are the damages? In a family law exam question I suspect you could sue the state to exercise it's inherent jurisdiction over you in order to get an order staying you can go to church.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Cool answers, thanks!Newfie posted:That seems to be out of line with the case that I only remember as AC http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/girl-s-forced-blood-transfusion-didn-t-violate-rights-top-court-1.858660 If a team of psychiatrists can confirm that she really is religious and not just a stupider-than-normal fourteen year old, then she's probably past "an age of reason" and can be said to have a faith. Her right to have that faith still falls apart if she uses it to endanger her own life though, that's an adults-only privilege.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Lawgoons, this is sort of a crosspost from the Fabgoons thread. I'm in Philadelphia and recently interviewed for an administrative position at a religious school. I'm not part of their religion and am okay not being hired because of that. My problem is that I'm in a relationship with another woman, and their denomination generally frowns on that. In Philadelphia sexual orientation is protected in employment, but I've been trying to get details on how that interacts with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1st amendment. I did try one of those ask a lawyer sites, but some lawyer from Indiana basically went "Title VII means they can discriminate". That doesn't make sense to me. I assume religious organizations can't refuse to hire me, say, if I were in an interracial relationship. How is a same-sex relationship any different? If there's some reason why they can discriminate I want to understand what that is. I'm really confused on how the law treats me here and am not sure if I should reach out to a lawyer specializing in LGBT law. Nothing's happened yet that I could cry fowl on but if I get the job I'm not sure how I can protect my potential employment.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
An interracial relationship doesn't directly contradict the tenets of their faith. They will probably argue that being in a same-sex relationship brings you out of communion with the church, which makes you ineligible to work for an organization that requires its employees to be members of the faith. The Ontario Catholic school board routinely uses the same thinking to fire unmarried, pregnant teachers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
In my state, we have an anti-discrimination law that is more protective than Title VII. However, the law also exempts religious nonprofits, which are not considered an "employer" for the purposes of the law. Not from PA, but maybe it works similarly over there--might be worth looking at however the PA statute defines an employer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:An interracial relationship doesn't directly contradict the tenets of their faith. They will probably argue that being in a same-sex relationship brings you out of communion with the church, which makes you ineligible to work for an organization that requires its employees to be members of the faith. The Ontario Catholic school board routinely uses the same thinking to fire unmarried, pregnant teachers. I'm in America, not Canada. Based on my application, which explicitly said "I'm not of faith X", they still interviewed me. They have a good chance of hiring me despite my religion, it's my sexuality which would be the problem. It would sorta be like a US Catholic school board knowingly hiring a Protestant and then dismissing them for getting a divorce, despite it being legal. Bro Enlai posted:In my state, we have an anti-discrimination law that is more protective than Title VII. However, the law also exempts religious nonprofits, which are not considered an "employer" for the purposes of the law. Not from PA, but maybe it works similarly over there--might be worth looking at however the PA statute defines an employer. It only exempts them re: religion. quote:Nothing in § 9-1103 shall apply to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by any such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its religious activities.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Gyre posted:Lawgoons, this is sort of a crosspost from the Fabgoons thread. As Bro Enlai said, a state or city can protect individual rights more fully than the federal law or constitution. This is what Philadelphia has done. However, the Philadelphia anti-discrimination law cannot trump the individual rights protected by the first amendment of the US constitution (or PA's if applicable, but that's an unnecessary complication at this point) So, it will come down to the balancing between the first amendment rights of the church and your rights under the City regulation. Churches and religious organizations get a pass on discrimination for selecting its ministers; the folks who keep and teach their particular faith. In the last few years, the scope of the ministerial exception has been expanded so that with a little bit of work, a church can make almost every employee fall under the ministerial exception. "She's not just a secretary, according to her job description, she may also be called upon to explain our beliefs and practices to callers, offer prayer to callers and...and..." until the secretary will fit into the ministerial exception. Or, the church could go the "not our denomination" route and be covered under the City of Philadelphia regulation. What kind of position are you applying for? Bro Enlai posted:In my state, we have an anti-discrimination law that is more protective than Title VII. However, the law also exempts religious nonprofits, which are not considered an "employer" for the purposes of the law. Not from PA, but maybe it works similarly over there--might be worth looking at however the PA statute defines an employer. Philadelphia's anti-discrimination law quote:9-1102 quote:9-1103 quote:9-1104
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Gyre posted:I'm in America, not Canada. Based on my application, which explicitly said "I'm not of faith X", they still interviewed me. They have a good chance of hiring me despite my religion, it's my sexuality which would be the problem. It would sorta be like a US Catholic school board knowingly hiring a Protestant and then dismissing them for getting a divorce, despite it being legal. Yup, I saw that, I was drawing a comparison. Here's a case where a school in PA fired a teacher for being in a same-sex marriage, by claiming that the teaching position was technically equivalent to that of a minister. Being in a same-sex marriage makes you ineligible to be a minister, therefore that stuff I said. You'd need some balls to pull it on an administrator who isn't in an actual teaching role, but I wouldn't put it past them to just say "All of this school's activities are 'religious activities' so get out". Also, if your contract has a morals clause forbidding you from doing legal-but-against-their-faith stuff (which is an entirely different thing from merely belonging to another, or no, faith) your first day could still be really short. In your position I would definitely at least get a consultation.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What kind of position are you applying for? Administrative. The school is small enough that I would be basically their entire receptionist/admin section apart from the director. I'm guessing they would have a good argument about the ministerial thing, since I'd be basically responsible for parent-school liaison? flakeloaf posted:Yup, I saw that, I was drawing a comparison. Here's a case where a school in PA fired a teacher for being in a same-sex marriage, by claiming that the teaching position was technically equivalent to that of a minister. Being in a same-sex marriage makes you ineligible to be a minister, therefore that stuff I said. You'd need some balls to pull it on an administrator who isn't in an actual teaching role, but I wouldn't put it past them to just say "All of this school's activities are 'religious activities' so get out". Also, if your contract has a morals clause forbidding you from doing legal-but-against-their-faith stuff (which is an entirely different thing from merely belonging to another, or no, faith) your first day could still be really short. There was a recent case in MA where they found in favor of a man in a same-sex marriage, but he was an administrator. I don't know how my situation would differ. If I wanted to get a consultation, how would I go about it? I know that one of our local LGBT centers does legal stuff, so should I contact them? And would email or phone be better?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Gyre posted:Administrative. The school is small enough that I would be basically their entire receptionist/admin section apart from the director. I'm guessing they would have a good argument about the ministerial thing, since I'd be basically responsible for parent-school liaison? What does the job description say? If they fire you because you're a lesbian, they'll have a more difficult time proving the ministerial exception if their own job description doesn't include ministerial duties. Call the LGBT center that does legal stuff to get started on looking for an attorney. (Though you might just be borrowing trouble doing so before you're hired) (Unless you're also relocating)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
It shouldn't, but that doesn't stop them from trying to advance an awful argument anyway. If "a teacher is really a priest" is something a court run by adults accepts, then "any thing done in a religious school is a religious activity" might be something a lovely human being may still try. If your LGBT center has any legal experience at all then they should know who the players are, yeah. The PA chapter of the ACLU also has a page about themselves, and gaylaw.net says the Statewide PA Rights Coalition is pretty widespread. In any case I'd want to phone them, both for instant gratification and also because email isn't a secure means of communication.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
joat mon posted:What does the job description say? If they fire you because you're a lesbian, they'll have a more difficult time proving the ministerial exception if their own job description doesn't include ministerial duties. Description doesn't include anything about ministerial duties, but it doesn't necessarily exclude it either; they say work "including" some general clerical and administrative duties. Sorry if this seems a little vague, but the exact wording is really easily traced back to them. I'm not relocating, so I may wait to see if they offer me the job before calling up any legal help. Does that make sense? Also this is just a minor, non-legal thing but please don't assume that "in a relationship with a woman" = lesbian. I'm bisexual. flakeloaf posted:It shouldn't, but that doesn't stop them from trying to advance an awful argument anyway. If "a teacher is really a priest" is something a court run by adults accepts, then "any thing done in a religious school is a religious activity" might be something a lovely human being may still try. I really hope they're not lovely human beings but being queer I've learned that charming people can quickly turn horrible when religion is involved. I'll take a look at those resources, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Gyre posted:I really hope they're not lovely human beings but being queer I've learned that charming people can quickly turn horrible when religion is involved. I'll take a look at those resources, thanks! You are just asking for a terrible chain of events to play out with this endeavor. They'll fire you for a completely unrelated reason and you'll be left in a lovely, jobless situation, and they'll probably do it for cause so you can't get unemployment, much less consider giving that abomination-unto-god a positive reference. I like to expect the best of people but as you already admitted, religious organizations will often disappoint in this regard. You really should look elsewhere if at all possible.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Ohio. Today after my accident, for which I was absolutely not at fault, i went to my car at the lot to retrieve my possessions from my vehicle only to find that they dumped gravel and oil all over the back seat of my car, destroying everything back there, including my $240 of Dominion cards. They gave me absolutely no warning that this was a possibility. I called both insurance companies, mine and State farm (who has been great throughout this process), and they said I have to go after the towing company directly. I am currently composing a very polite email asking them to replace the items, with a handy amazon link. How hard is it to do small claims? I imagine it's straightforward. Should I just not bother? I'm mostly furious that these utter fuckers ruined my poo poo and then tried to give me a personally responsibility lecture when I approached them about dumping oil all over my poo poo without warning after I had just been in an accident.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Ohio. Today after my accident, for which I was absolutely not at fault, i went to my car at the lot to retrieve my possessions from my vehicle only to find that they dumped gravel and oil all over the back seat of my car, destroying everything back there, including my $240 of Dominion cards. They gave me absolutely no warning that this was a possibility. Do you have homeowner's or renter's insurance? That typically covers your possessions when they're in your vehicle.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Hi law goons. We are having a discussion in the Homeownership thread down in BFC. It begins with this post and is just a few posts long. I would like some sort of lawyerly legal opinion about this. In the united states, can a homeowner's insurance policy issuer deny a theft or burglary claim, solely on the basis that the homeowner failed to adequately secure their home? If so, exactly what standard of security is considered non-negligent? For example, suppose a homeowner failed to lock their front door while they were gone, and they were then burgled with no other forced entry. Could the insurer claim that the homeowner was "negligent" for not locking the door, and then deny the claim on that basis? How about if a homeowner locked the front door, but not the back door, and there was an unlocked side gate that lead to the back door? Do community standards apply? In an inner city where everyone has bars on their doors and windows, are you negligent if you don't have bars? If you live in a rural area where nobody even locks their door, are you negligent for not locking your door? Is the burden on the homeowner to prove in court what their community standard for security is? If there's specific case law that settles this matter, I'd love to see it. I'm also interested if the answers to these questions vary by state, and the degree to which (if any) an insurer can write negligence clauses into a contract that let them deny claims on these sorts of bases.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 22:53
|
|
