In Florida, is there a law which causes restaurants refuse to hire minors, or to forbid minors to operate some equipment? The 2021 Florida Statues state, (2) No minor under 18 years of age, whether such person’s disabilities of nonage have been removed, shall be employed or permitted or suffered to work in any of the following places of employment or in any of the following occupations, provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b), (e), (g), (h), (j), (m), (o), and (q) shall not apply to the employment of student learners under the conditions prescribed in s. 450.161: (a) In or around explosive or radioactive materials. (b) On any scaffolding, roof, superstructure, residential or nonresidential building construction, or ladder above 6 feet. (c) In or around toxic substances or corrosives, including pesticides or herbicides, unless proper field entry time allowances have been followed. (d) Any mining occupation. (e) In the operation of power-driven woodworking machines. (f) In the operation of power-driven hoisting apparatus. (g) In the operation of power-driven metal forming, punching, or shearing machines. (h) Slaughtering, meat packing, processing, or rendering, except as provided in 29 C.F.R. s. 570.61(c). (i) In the operation of power-driven bakery machinery. (j) In the operation of power-driven paper products and printing machines. (k) Manufacturing brick, tile, and like products. (l) Wrecking or demolition. (m) Excavation operations. (n) Logging or sawmilling. (o) Working on electric apparatus or wiring. (p) Firefighting. (q) Operating or assisting to operate, including starting, stopping, connecting or disconnecting, feeding, or any other activity involving physical contact associated with operating, a tractor over 20 PTO horsepower, any trencher or earthmoving equipment, fork lift, or any harvesting, planting, or plowing machinery, or any moving machinery. So it appears that minors should be able to do pretty much anything an adult can when working at a restaurant. Yet, when I was working at a certain fast food place, I was not allowed to use the tomato or onion slicers (which were fully mechanical), and only allowed to use a plastic knife, but not a metal one. I was permitted to use the oven though; wouldn't that be a violation of (i)? Many food places also refuse to hire anyone in back of house under 18, despite some not being too different from those such as McDonald's or Wendy's. Is there any law which imposes extra liability on restaurants in such cases, or otherwise inclines restaurants not to hire minors or allow them to operate equipment?
Some of the categories involve restaurants (i.e. 1(h) and 1(i)), and employers may not want to go through the student learner exception hoops. Every employer has to get worker's compensation insurance for all of their employees. Those rates may be prohibitively high for minors in some kinds of activities. More generally, employers don't want to have worker's compensation claims or injured employees and may simply not trust younger employees to be safe. Some jobs involve access to alcohol that employers want to limit. Some jobs involve contractual authority or decision making that the employer wants to limit to adults.
I'm not going to comment on what your manager is doing specifically, since I don't know all the facts. But in general: As a general rule, businesses have freedom of contract. This means they can choose to do business with, or not do business with, anyone they want. There are specific laws that create exceptions to this freedom of contract. The most important are federal and state civil rights laws, which prohibit many businesses from discriminating on the basis of certain protected classes, such as race, sex, religion, etc. In general, "locals vs. out-of-towners" is not a protected class, and therefore no law explicitly prohibits this type of discrimination. However, it's possible a court could find that "locals" is a proxy for some actual protected class--for example, if the hotel is in a city and the "locals" are predominantly Black.
I think it's important to keep in mind the essence of your actions. @Mowzer gave a great answer on the matter in hand, but I'd like to add a point of view. Is it illegal to eat while driving? Like pointed out by @Mowzer, if no law prohibits it, it's allowed by default (lots of countries have this premise). But what about the consequences of your actions? Maybe there's no law against eating in the car, but there sure is one in my country that specific says that you are not allowed to drive without using both hands in the wheel. The only exception to this rule is to take out your hand from the wheel to use the stick to change gears. Another point of view to add is the liability. Let's say you're minding your own business while driving and a lunatic trying to commit suicide jumps in front of your car. It's a pretty straight-forward case, you have no reason to be blamed. Now, let's add to the same scenario your snack; with a small change, you are now facing a accident that may have been caused by reckless driving (another thing commonly illegal). To sum up, the law is not really like math that have axioms that determine true or false statements without any distinguishment. That's why every case is single handled in the law by it's particularities.
Possibly I am Australian so I am not familiar with Albertan labour law but I have done a little research and the underlying common law principles are similar. I will assume that you are covered by Albertan law and not the Canada Labour Code. The next part of the answer is based on A Guide to Rights and Responsibilities in Alberta Workplaces. First, if you lost it they would need to ask you to pay for it, they could not deduct it from your pay without a garnishee order (p. 10). Second, if the device is safety equipment, and it is certainly arguable that it is, then it is the employee's responsibility to use it and the employer's responsibility to keep it in safe working order; this would include replacing it if it were lost (p. 12). The common law position depends on a) the contract and b) if any negligence were involved. Contract What does your current employment contract say about your use of the employer's equipment generally and this item in particular? If it says something then, unless it is an illegal term, that is what happens. If it is silent, then it turns on the particular circumstances. Also, a contract cannot be changed unilaterally, if they are trying to introduce a new term then you have to agree to it; remembering that there may be consequences to taking a stand against your employer, you should say that you do not agree - this removes the risk that the employer could argue that there was tacit agreement. Negligence In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, as an employee this is virtually a given; breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), this would depend on the circumstances of the loss or damage. You have to take reasonable care of the equipment - this is not a subjective standard, you need to do everything that a person in your position can do to protect the equipment from loss or damage; the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to the plaintiff. This has to do with the "proximity" of the harm, if for example the device needed a battery change and you took it to a technician who damaged the item in changing the battery then your actions are not proximate to the loss; and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. Well, if it is lost or damaged this is pretty unarguable. So, if you take reasonable care of the device and, notwithstanding, it is lost or damaged then you would not be liable for negligence ... probably. Talk to your union rep; this is exactly the sort of stuff that they are there to sort out.
Are minors allowed to possess handguns in Oregon? Yes, with exceptions, although they may not purchase or own handguns, and are not permitted to conceal carry handguns. Oregon Revised Statutes § 166.470 prohibits any person from intentionally selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a handgun to anyone under 21 years of age, ORS § 166.470(1)(a), except the temporary transfer of any firearm to a minor for hunting, target practice, or any other lawful purpose. ORS § 166.470(3)(b). The other primary statute that is relevant is Oregon Revised Statutes § 166.250 which also provides that minors may possess any firearm temporarily for hunting, target practice, or any other lawful purpose. ORS § 166.250(2)(a)(B). But, despite this general rule, a minor may not possess a firearm if they are under 18 years of age, and while a minor, committed the equivalent of an adult felony or a misdemeanor involving violence, within four years of being charged with possession. ORS § 166.250(1)(c). (Source).
I would serve the parents (certified mail), with a &quot;cease and desist&quot; letter, telling them that the children are repeatedly trespassing on your property and that you want them to stop; even get the police involved if you have to. I know it sounds harsh, but you said New England; that's where I live and I know the trespass laws are not in your favor ... especially when it comes to kids. Take Connecticut as an example: This is their law on trespass and kids (not just attractive nuisance!): A possessor of land owes each person who enters his land a certain duty of care based on the person's status. The legal significance is that a possessor of land has the duty to an invitee to inspect the premises for hidden defects and to repair or erect safeguards, if necessary, to make the premises reasonably safe. He has no duty to inspect or to repair or erect safeguards for licensees. But he is liable if he knows of a condition, realizes it involves unreasonable risk, has reason to believe the licensee will not discover it, and he permits the licensee to enter or remain without warning or making the condition reasonably safe. Generally, an owner owes trespassers no duty of care because he has no reason to expect them to be on his property. Therefore, he does not have to warn or protect them from potentially harmful conditions on the property. However, an exception applies if a property owner knows, or has reason to anticipate, that children will trespass on his land. In this case, a special duty arises and the owner must take steps to protect children from any of the property's dangerous conditions. The post you just made indicates even you think that the rock walls, or other &quot;normal garden features&quot; could be dangerous; and they can be! The law requires that you take reasonable steps to eliminate the condition or by otherwise keeping children away from it. DUTY OWED TO TRESPASSER In Connecticut, the following rules apply to a possessor of land with respect to a trespasser. He may not intentionally harm the trespasser or lay a trap for him. The trespasser is entitled to due care after his presence is actually known. There is no duty owed regarding the condition of the premises. The possessor of land has no duty to trespassers if he is engaged in a dangerous activity until the person's presence is know. The possessor of land has no duty to warn trespassers of dangerous hidden conditions (Conn. Law of Torts, § 47). Duty Owed to Trespassing Children Connecticut's appellate courts have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts rule regarding the duty of a property owner to trespassing children (Duggan v. Esposito, 178 Conn. 156 (1979), Neal v. Shiels, Inc., 166 Conn. 3 (1974), Greene v. DiFazio, 148 Conn. 419 (1961), Wolfe v. Rehbein, 123 Conn. 110 (1937), Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 195 (1984)). Under this rule, if an owner knows or has reason to know that children will be on his property, he has the duty to protect them from injury by either fixing the harmful condition or ensuring that the children will not have access to that part of the property. The rule states that a possessor of land is liable for harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition on the land if (1) the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass in that place, (2) the condition is one the possessor knows or has reason to know and should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children, (3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk, (4) the utility of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to children involved, and (5) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect children (Restatement (Second), 2 Torts 339). Put in the letter that you are disclaiming any liability for injury to them that may occur on your property, and make them aware of all the ways they could be injured – so they've been informed. You don't have a duty to remove rock walls because unsupervised kids jump off them. They are not invitees, they are trespassers. So make it known you do not want them on the land and for any further breach you will call the police. Because otherwise you could be responsible. Using CT again as an example, you could include the legal statute about trespass in your notice: Trespass Crimes and Infractions A person commits first degree criminal trespass when (1) he enters or remains in a building or any other premises after the owner or an authorized person personally communicates an order to leave or not enter and (2) he knows that he is not licensed or privileged to be there. This crime also applies to entering or remaining at a place in violation of a retraining or protective order. This is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $2,000, or both (CGS § 53a-107). A person commits second degree criminal trespass when he enters or remains in a building knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so. This is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both (CGS § 53a-108). A person commits third degree criminal trespass when, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any premises for hunting, trapping, or fishing or enters or remains in premises that are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or that are fenced or enclosed to exclude intruders. This also applies to state lands near state institutions. This is a class C misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in prison, a fine of up to $500, or both (CGS § 53a-109). It is a defense to these crimes if (1) the building was abandoned, (2) the premises at the time of entry were open to the public and the person complied with all lawful conditions on access and remaining on the premises, or (3) the person reasonably believed that the owner (or someone else with the power to do so) would have or did license him to enter or remain on the premises (CGS § 53a-110). A person commits simple trespass if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters premises without intent to harm any property. This is an infraction punishable by a fine, currently $77 plus costs and fees if paid by mail (CGS § 53a-110a). A separate infraction covers trespass on railroad property when a person enters or remains on the property without lawful authority or consent of the railroad carrier. This is currently a $121 fine plus costs and fees if paid by mail (CGS § 53a-110d). You could just substitute your state's laws if you're in MA, or RI, or wherever. You could have a lawyer draft this letter for probably $200 (free if you have a friend who practices :~) and that will really scare them. Tell them they will be liable for any damage the kids cause/or may cause to your property. But without doubt, put them on notice!
It is not absolutely against the law to produce schedule 1 substances (such as marijuana). Per 21 USC 822(a)(1), Every person who manufactures or distributes any controlled substance or list I chemical...shall obtain annually a registration issued by the Attorney General which entails specific permissions to make, distribute etc, under (b). If you turn to the prohibitions in 21 USC 841, it starts the list of prohibitions saying "Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful...". The code is liberally littered with the expression "unauthorized". The Attorney General is given authority under 21 USC 811 to make rules, thus can permit production. It's not actually clear who the grower is in the Compassionate IND program. In the Randall case, the "doctrine of necessity" was apparently invoked successfully which led to charges against Randall being dropped. The legal details of the AGs blind eye towards states like Washington are a little hazy, as it were.
It probably depends on whether the employer is covered by a relevant non-discrimination statute. Most employers in the United States are covered, but some are small enough to be exempt. Federal law exempts employers with under 15 employees and religious organizations. There might also be a relevant state law. It also would depend upon whether the EEOC or a court found that "be blessed" was a compelled religious statement in violation of a worker's beliefs, and whether allowing the worker not to say it would be a "reasonable accommodation." This is a strong case, and I suspect that the worker would win on both counts but it isn't a completely open and shut case. There is arguably a secular meaning to the word "blessed" and a court could conceivably find that there is a legitimate and indispensible business purpose for insisting that every single person in the worker's position need to make this statement, although I doubt that a court would do so.