Archives for June 2015

A Virginia police officer has resigned after being accused of using excessive force when responding to a call about a potential hit-and-run. Fredericksburg, VA Police Officer Shaun Jergens was among several who responded to a reported accident on May 4, 2015. Jergens, apparently like the other officers on the scene, assumed that a black man in a stopped car was being noncompliant.

In actuality, the man had apparently suffered a stroke. Despite no evidence of willful and active resistance, the officers proceeded to taze and pepper spray the man. Once they had him out of the car and on the ground, the man’s foot was then run over by his own vehicle. Reports the NY Daily News:

“It was dispatched via the radio that citizens reported that the suspect was moving around a lot inside of his vehicle,” Jergens said in a statement to the Free Lance-Star. “I believed that the suspect may be looking for a weapon or looking to conceal a weapon based on this information and the fact that he was believed to be fleeing a felony (hit and run of an occupied vehicle).”

Although most police officers are good people, too often, cops treat all citizens that they interact with as both criminals and as people undeserving of respect. This can be the result of a police department that fosters such a culture. Madia Law represents victims of police misconduct, excessive force, and unlawful arrest. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution when cops act in such manners. Federal law allows victims of police abuse to file federal lawsuits.

In a nearly unanimous Supreme Court decision released yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for refusing to hire a Muslim job applicant because she wore a hijab to a 2008 job interview.

While Abercrombie won at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed that opinion and the accompanying notion that “actual knowledge” of a necessary religious accommodation is required to find discrimination. The Court explained, “an applicant need only show that his need for [a religious] accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.” Because Abercrombie had a “Look Policy” in place that prohibited black clothing and “caps,” the Court explained that it ran afoul of Title VII‘s prohibition on religious discrimination even without more than an “unsubstantiated suspicion” that religious accommodation would be necessary.

Having clarified the legal test, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration to determine whether in fact Abercrombie discriminated against the plaintiff.

Madia Law represents victims of religious discrimination in the workplace. State and federal law in Minnesota and Wisconsin prohibit employers from choosing not to hire someone based on the person’s religious beliefs (or perceived religious beliefs).