Personnel-law issues in emergency management

William C. Nicholson, JD

doi:10.5055/jem.2005.0036

Authors

William C. Nicholson, JD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2005.0036

Keywords:

-

Abstract

-

Author Biography

William C. Nicholson, JD

Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina (wcnicholson@nccu.edu). Note: This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, consult your own attorney.

References

29 USC §§ 151-169 (2004).

The extremely limited rights of Department of Homeland Security employees was the subject of vigorous debate during the adoption of the HS Act.

Bolton v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, 527 NW 2d 149 (Minn. App. 1985).

Buckel v. Rodriguez, 891 P2d 16 (Or. App. 1995).

Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc., 818 P 2d 930 (Or. 1991).

Palmer v. Beverly Enterprises, 823 F 2d 1105 (7th Cir. 1987).

Austin v. Torrington Co., 180 F 2d 416 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 US 977 (1987).

O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 US 709 (1987).

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 US 62 (1990).

In 1970, Congress enacted the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 1970. 84 Stat. 1590 (codified at 29 U.S.C. 553, 651-678 (2002)). The OSH Act specifically authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate national health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).

29 USC § 667.

29 USC § 634(a).

29 USC § 657.

29 USC § 657 (c).

5 USC §§ 8101-8151.

Indiana ethics laws and enforcement procedures are detailed at 40 Indiana Administrative Code Article 2 (2004). 17. For further information on the Hatch Act, see www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm.