While the recent revelation that the Department of Justice may have displayed .... errr, partisanship? ... in its hiring Under U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales hardly came as a shock, it was an interesting twist to learn that an affiliation with a a few well-respected local legal groups may have actually hindered applicants' chances of being interns or getting into the honors program by getting them red flagged as "liberals." (Click here for prior post on the topic.)
Some argue that the Claude Rains-like protestations of those "Shocked, SHOCKED" to find ideology mattered at the DOJ to be disingenuous and over-the-top. They maintain that during the Clinton Administration, for example, politics were not completely irrelevant to hiring decisions for the programs. Without passing on the truth or falsity of those assertions about past administrations (primarily because I have no solid evidence one way or the other), I still have never been much of a fan of the "everybody's doing it" defense.
This much is perfectly clear to me: "Deselecting" otherwise highly qualified individuals from DOJ service merely because they were affiliated with prominent legal groups that someone may have perceived as "liberal" is wrong. Period. And yes, it was also wrong when the media distorted and demonized the fact that then-Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and then-U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose happened to be members of the perfectly fine (and, yes, conservative) Federalist Society. However, as my mother was wont to say in my childhood days, two wrongs don't make a right.
It's unfortunate that guilt-by-association tactics are once again in full bloom. If we don't watch ourselves, we may become a society where the only reasonable thing to do is to belong to no group at all that is either socially active or makes us think. Fortunately, the high-definition flat-screen digital television has arrived just in time to help ease the transition. I only pray that you remember to keep it strictly tuned to the "correct" channels. Otherwise, you may one day find yourself "deselected" for something.
Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hiring. Show all posts
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Hiring freeze at Fourth Judicial District announced
The Fourth Judicial District, serving Hennepin County, in a press release today announced an immediate hiring freeze along with changes in court hours and operations in response to an anticipated budget shortfall. The court projects a $1.4 million budget deficit for its current fiscal year which ends in June 2008.
The hiring freeze reportedly will result in staff shortages throughout the court, requiring a reduction in services. Some of the changes that will impact the public include:
-- Walk-in counter and telephone services will be curtailed Wednesday afternoons, 1:30-4:30 pm, beginning Jan. 2, 2008. For example, citizens will no longer be able to pay traffic tickets in person, request copies of court files, or receive updates on the status of cases via telephone on Wednesday afternoons at all locations. Court hearings and trials will not be affected and will continue as usual.
-- Conciliation Court calendars will be reduced by one-third, resulting in some delay in scheduling hearings.
-- A program that provides supervised visitation services to noncustodial parents and their children in Family Court will be halted.
-- The court will no longer provide arbitrators for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil Court.
-- The court will no longer conduct criminal record checks for the public; members of the public will be referred to the public access website where this information is available.
Several factors are contributing to the anticipated shortfall, according to the release. The Hennepin County Court received $900,000 less than its budget required to cover salary and fringe benefit increases and funding for positions required by a new information system. Some of the new money that was appropriated to the state’s trial courts for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 biennium was earmarked for special purposes, making it unavailable to cover increases in basic operating costs like employee salaries and insurance.
The District had hoped to rely on vacancy savings to help cover its shortfall. However, year-to-date vacancy rates have been much lower than expected, the release said.
The hiring freeze reportedly will result in staff shortages throughout the court, requiring a reduction in services. Some of the changes that will impact the public include:
-- Walk-in counter and telephone services will be curtailed Wednesday afternoons, 1:30-4:30 pm, beginning Jan. 2, 2008. For example, citizens will no longer be able to pay traffic tickets in person, request copies of court files, or receive updates on the status of cases via telephone on Wednesday afternoons at all locations. Court hearings and trials will not be affected and will continue as usual.
-- Conciliation Court calendars will be reduced by one-third, resulting in some delay in scheduling hearings.
-- A program that provides supervised visitation services to noncustodial parents and their children in Family Court will be halted.
-- The court will no longer provide arbitrators for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil Court.
-- The court will no longer conduct criminal record checks for the public; members of the public will be referred to the public access website where this information is available.
Several factors are contributing to the anticipated shortfall, according to the release. The Hennepin County Court received $900,000 less than its budget required to cover salary and fringe benefit increases and funding for positions required by a new information system. Some of the new money that was appropriated to the state’s trial courts for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 biennium was earmarked for special purposes, making it unavailable to cover increases in basic operating costs like employee salaries and insurance.
The District had hoped to rely on vacancy savings to help cover its shortfall. However, year-to-date vacancy rates have been much lower than expected, the release said.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Negligent hiring claim KO'd
Can an insurance company be held liable for negligently hiring an agent who allegedly used her position to bilk a vulnerable adult out of $104,000?
No, the Court of Appeals answered today in Johnson v. Peterson, et al. (The appellate court upheld dismissals of claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision.)
The agent allegedly convinced the vulnerable man to give her the money to be used for medical emergencies faced by her and her family and because of her "dire financial situation."
In upholding the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, the court found an employer cannot be liable on such a claim in the absence of evidence it was foreseeable an employee would pose a threat of physical injury at the time of hiring, or the employee inflicted a physical injury.
"The complaint only alleges emotional distress that may have caused heart problems and anxiety disorders," wrote Judge Christopher Dietzen. "But emotional distress is not a physical injury."
No, the Court of Appeals answered today in Johnson v. Peterson, et al. (The appellate court upheld dismissals of claims for negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision.)
The agent allegedly convinced the vulnerable man to give her the money to be used for medical emergencies faced by her and her family and because of her "dire financial situation."
In upholding the dismissal of the negligent hiring claim, the court found an employer cannot be liable on such a claim in the absence of evidence it was foreseeable an employee would pose a threat of physical injury at the time of hiring, or the employee inflicted a physical injury.
"The complaint only alleges emotional distress that may have caused heart problems and anxiety disorders," wrote Judge Christopher Dietzen. "But emotional distress is not a physical injury."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
