Can a college force you to use their health center? I am a Junior in college and I have a history of mental health hospitalizations while in college. I went to the hospital earlier this semester because I didn't realize I was having a panic attack. When I returned, the Dean of Student Life told me I was being withdrawn from the school. I convinced them to let me stay, but there was a contract I was supposed to sign, which included "agreeing to use College's health center as the initial point of contact for all medical needs; use of our counseling center for support and/or referral; agreeing to see our contracted physician and/or psychiatrist if deemed appropriate; always notifying us if you seeking medical treatment at any time; attending all classes; communicating with the Health Center and/or Student Life for any need you may have. In addition, should you find yourself ill, EMS will be called and transport will be by ambulance. As I shared, if you waiver at any point or your medical needs are outside the scope of what College can provide to you and the resulting needs become disruptive to the community, you may be involuntarily withdrawn from the College." Is that even legal? The contract never materialized, but I'm worried it will. What should I do if it does surface?
It would largely depend on their "or else" leverage, and whether this is a government vs. private school. A government school has more limited ability to tell you what to do (being an agent of the government), and there has to be some statutory underpinning for any restrictions they would impose on your liberty. They may require you to have some form of medical insurance and may require you to seek treatment under certain circumstances: depending on the nature of the incident that this is a response to (in particular, what kind of disruption may have arisen). A private school can require pretty much whatever it wants, as long as the act is generally legal (they cannot compel you to steal). They cannot unilaterally change the terms of their contract with you, but you'd have to do some digging to figure out what contract if any you have with them. In either event, if they can legally expel you, they can impose conditions on what you have to do in order for them to not expel you.
In the US, the most wide-spread proscription against a medical treatment (broadly construed) is that only 10 of 50 states allow physician-assisted suicide. In Washington v. Glucksberg (one of the states that subsequently made such suicides legal), SCOTUS affirms that such a law does not violate the Due Process Clause. Given a historical analysis, the court concludes that an &quot;asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause&quot;. O'Connor in her concurring opinion further states that &quot;There is no dispute that dying patients in Washington and New York can obtain palliative care, even when doing so would hasten their deaths&quot;, but this falls short of a ruling that a person has a protected liberty interest in seeking medical care. Cruzan v. Director affirms that &quot;[a] competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment&quot; (also noting that &quot;informed consent&quot; may derive from common law or specific state constitutions). Reciting prior reasoning on Due Process and medical treatment and referring to Jacobson v. Massachusetts (smallpox case), they note that &quot;the Court balanced an individual's liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State's interest in preventing disease&quot;. There seems to be a dearth of cases affirming a protected liberty interest in seeking a particular medical procedure. Were the court to announce a fundamental right to seek some medical treatment, that right could still be subordinated to the states compelling interest in preventing some harm associated with a medical procedure, with legal review being carried out under a strict scrutiny standard. It should be borne in mind that Congress does limit access to drugs and devices, hence there is no constitutionally-protected right to take LSD as a treatment for mental problems. To the extent that a procedure relies on a (not-yet approved) device, that device must be approved by the FDA.
Who in the fraternity would be prosecuted if this became an issue? A lot of people could be held liable for this, including people who are not even in the fraternity. Anyone who has knowledge of the machine or the fact that it was possible for minors to access alcohol through it could technically be held liable if a prosecutor wanted to make that case. Presumably the building is owned by someone else and just leased out to fraternity members, and they very well could be held liable for sale to minors also. Would the machine be safer if it just accepted cash (so that no electronic paper trail was created), with a big warning sign WINK WINK that anyone under the age of 21 was strictly prohibited from purchasing from it? No. Payment method is irrelevant here. There are a number of states that legally allow vending machines to sell alcohol, but vendors are required to verify the age of any person accessing them and ensure that those cards aren't being used by people not authorized. What you describe is an extremely relaxed environment where admittedly no one is attempting to verify identities. The "accepting cash" scenario is no different than a liquor store selling alcohol to anyone that comes in just because they're willing to pay with cash instead of a credit card. Sales to minors laws are not "as long as you warn them, you're safe" laws. They require vendors to actively check IDs and ensure that alcohol is not landing in the hands of minors. Accepting cash just to erase the evidence doesn't meet that burden. There are a lot of legal troubles with the situation that could get a lot of people charged with multiple offenses. That you have underage fraternity members living there suggests you should not have alcohol readily accessible in the house at all, as most state laws expressly forbid providing access to alcohol, not just serving or selling. Them being there provides access to it, even if it's just a case in the fridge with a note on it. Not to mention, you technically cannot sell alcohol, as I highly doubt your fraternity has a liquor license to be able to do so. There's a big difference between asking everyone to pitch in to buy the case versus actively selling individual cans through a vending machine. The vending machine itself is violating liquor laws in your state merely by existing.
About the same as it is for engineers, doctors, architects, hairdressers, plumbers etc. to be collegiate It’s a job. You have shared interests (at least your profession). Why wouldn’t you be friendly? It’s your client’s who have a dispute; not you.
When dealing with recalcitrant agencies, governments, businesses or otherwise who move very slowly or refuse to deal with genuine consumer issues - like refunds they have agreed to - one thing to do is carefully up the ante. You need to get them to take you seriously, and one way is to potentially get some third party help. Call the hospital billing department and say if they don't resolve this issue - which they admit exists - you're going to file a complaint with a consumer advocate, like Nevada Consumer Affairs .gov and/or get legal help from a non-profit or pro-bono legal aid firm, like Pro Bono Legal Services - State Bar of Nevada. I say carefully because you don't want to say I'm going to sue! or get angry and threaten anything. Just tell them you're looking at all your options. And that may resolve the matter right there; they don't want to deal with the extra work of a complaint from the state government or a letter from an attorney, and you may have your refund quickly. If it doesn't, look at filing a complaint with the online form at Nevada Consumer Affairs, or call a free or pro bono legal clinic and see about getting help. Sometimes a formal complaint or a letter from a lawyer will quickly resolve things.
34 CFR 106.15 covers admissions, and (e) says Subpart C does not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education which traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting only students of one sex. Subpart C, then, kind of redundantly prohibits "discrimination on the basis of sex in admission and recruitment", so that means there is no prohibition against single-sex public institutions of undergraduate education. The remainder of Title 9 applies, though. "Public" institution does not mean "government-run", it means "open to the public", which Wellesley is, although it is not government-run. I am not positive, but I think DLI is not a public school (even though it is operated by the US Army).
Yes they can You are approaching this from the wrong direction. Their right to enforce what you can and can't do doesn't come from radio-spectrum law; it comes from property and contract law. You are on their property subject to a license that they give you to be there. One of the terms of that license is that you won't set up or operate a wireless network. No doubt there are other things you are not permitted to do; for example, you may not be able to sell goods and services. If you breach the terms of the license then you are trespassing and they are within their rights to have you removed. In addition, if you are a student (or staff), this is probably one of the terms of your contract with the university. If you breach it, they can terminate your candidature (employment). Contracts can impose obligations on you that goes beyond what the law obliges you to do. Indeed, there is no contract if it only requires what is already required.
The tort for this kind of activity is called public disclosure of private facts, and almost every U.S. state recognizes that this tort is invalid under the First Amendment in the absence of a legal duty not to disclose of the type existing between an attorney and client, or a psychotherapist and a patient, or a contractual non-disclosure agreement, that does not exist between roommates. There is nothing illegal about your roommate's conduct. Your best move at this point is to take responsibility for your own conduct, to repent and to convince the world that you're doing your best to get on the straight and narrow going forward. If your former roommate insisted on payment for not disclosing the information, that would be extortion, but there is nothing wrong with going ahead and disseminating it without trying to obtain something of value from you for not doing so.