Are there laws disallowing discriminatory pricing based on the customer&#39;s employment? Are there any jurisdictions in the US which make it illegal (against the law rather than against some contract or custom) to charge higher prices for categories of customers based on their employment. And I mean overtly. For example, can a restaurant post a sign which demands a $100 entry fee for anyone employed by any city or state government or for anyone who is a doctor or a lawyer? Clearly, customers can lie about their employer, but that's not the point. The point is that if anyone enters and then claims to be in a certain employment situation, then they would create a liability by making that claim.
Washington D.C.'s anti-discrimination laws currently include political affiliation and source of income. Given that the city is home to a wide arrange of political actors from Congressmen/women to lobbyists for various causes, these laws were enacted so various industries may not refuse service to someone based on political affiliation or making money as a lobbyist for a cause they disagree with. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing this elsewhere in the nation, but I'm not sure if there are any other jurisdiction that does this in the U.S. There is talk about enacting protections against discriminatory protections against service for Uniformed First Responders (typically police) though most incidents I'm aware of this kind of discrimination are employees of fast food restaurants that will receive some public backlash that forces company higher ups to discipline the employee. Certain chains of restaurants do offer discounts to members of a certain profession. Mission BBQ is very military and first responder friendly and will offer anyone who can show ID backing up their claims discounts on certain days (Military Service &quot;Birthdays&quot; and September 11. On Memorial Day, they set a table aside (complete with table cloth, candle, dishes, and a single red rose) for those lost in service to the country. Most famously, because their primary food product became so associated, Dunkin' Donuts initially offered free coffee and donuts to cops, giving police their trademark favorite food. This wasn't so much of a promotion as a mutual exchange of services: Cops (especially those working the Graveyard shift) typically enjoy their caffinated and sugary foods for keeping alert, as well as an occasion parking spot to write up reports... Dunkin' Donuts, one of the first chains to run 24/7 service in the U.S. needed some security (especially during the Graveyard shift, when robbers were more likely to cause trouble because of very few witnesses) and found that for the price of a donut and some coffee, they could have the city's finest sitting in their parking lot, sipping coffee and writing reports, for way cheaper than hiring a security service. (This practice was discontinued eventually as police forces saw these gifts as a possible corrupting influence and told officers to pay for their coffee. It wasn't that Dunkin' was bribing cops, so much as it was creating a bad image to the public.)
I want them to give me the promised price ... You can’t make them do this. A business that has posted an incorrect price is not obliged to sell for that price. See https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4466/344 ... and I want them to stop the Misleading advertising You can’t stop them yourself but you can report them to the relevant authorities. These are the ones you linked to: NSW Fair Trading for state law breach and the ACCC for Commonwealth breaches. Misleading pricing is a breach of both state and Federal law. Can you please give a practical advice? No. If you want legal advice, hire a lawyer. What can I do? Where should I complain? See above.
Under the assumption stated, the lecherous millionaire is soliciting an act of prostitution, albeit with an unusually high price. His proposal would be just as illegal (or legal) as an offer of $100 for a sexual encounter. In most jurisdictions it would be a crime. George Bernard Shaw famously asked a woman if she would have sex with him (sleep with him, I think was the wording) for a million pounds, and she hesitated and eventually said "well yes, in that case". He then asked if she would for five pounds. Her reported answer was "Mr Shaw! What do you think I am?!" to which he rejoined "We have settled that, Madam. Now we are haggling about the price." This is much the same case -- legally the amount or nature of the price does not matter. Whether this would also constitute sexual harassment would depend on the specific laws of the local jurisdiction.
In fact, the immigration quotas do not discriminate. The described limit is that "No more than 7 percent of the visas may be issued to natives of any one independent country in a fiscal year; no more than 2 percent may issued to any one dependency of any independent country". All countries get the same upper limit. Additionally, anti-discrimination laws are subject matter specific: they exist because Congress passed a law that prohibits using race as a basis for employing a person (which Congress can do because of the Commerce Clause). Congress has not passed any such law pertaining to granting of visas. There is a path of reasoning that could lead to concluding that national quotas violate anti-discrimination laws, based on an "effects test" (disparate impact). It appears to be a fact that an applicant for a visa has a much higher probability of being denied a visa is their country of origin is China or India, as opposed to Sweden, which one could spin into a disparate impact argument. In order for this argument to become the law, there would have to be a case brought to the federal courts to the effect that national quotas are illegal, and as far as I know there has never been such a case. There are no provisions in anti-discrimination legislation that support a disparate impact doctrine in immigration, and pretty clear evidence that it was not congressionally intended since Title 8 Ch. 12 clearly calls for nation-based quotas. A final point: "national origin discrimination" is based on "an individual's, or his or her ancestor's, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group". A Swedish citizen of "Chinese national origin" is subject to the Swedish quota, not the Chinese quota, thus the discrimination is based on country of citizenship, not national origin.
You're thinking of &quot;unconscionability.&quot; In the United States, the general rule is that a contract provision will not be deemed unenforceable for unconscionability unless it is both procedurally and substantively unfair. A provision is considered procedurally unfair if it results from some sort of unfair asymmetry in bargaining positions. This could include situations where a party was acting under duress, had a diminished mental capacity, or unequal experience in the . A provision may be considered substantively unfair if it imposes disproportinately unfavorable terms on one party, perhaps by imposing costs far out of line with market prices, or by allocating all risk to that party. If the agreement is not both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, it won't be voided. So the Google TOS may be procedurally unfair because Google's market position gives it disproportionate bargaining power, but because they don't really impose any serious costs on you, they aren't unconscionable. Similarly, a contract provision requiring you to give me your house if you ever forget to turn off the porch lights at night wouldn't be unconscionable if it was agreed to after lengthy negotiations between our lawyers.
If you are given a paid job, and you do the work, then "consideration has been provided", and 1682 will not apply. As to "referral fees" those sound more like kickbacks, but it depends on what, if anything, the person gets for the fee.
They're not actually billing people different amounts because they have insurance or not. Doctors can pretty much bill a patient whatever they want for their service, similar to how a grocery store can charge whatever they want for their fresh deli cheese. Generally, they charge every single person the same amount. It just gets discounted depending on the insurance you have and how much they're willing to pay. One of the huge benefits of having medical insurance (outside of them paying for your medical expenses) is that they build contracts with service providers, known as their network. Those contracts specify prices (both preset and algorithmic) for certain services that you receive through those providers - the insurance provider will only pay that much and the doctor cannot charge the patient more than what is paid. If a claim was processed through a different insurance provider, the price will likely be different since each provider will have a separately negotiated contract with different price points for different services. It's not a system of "this is the insured price and this is the uninsured price" but rather a system of "this is the contract you established saying you'd accept this much from us for this service." For an uninsured person, though, you have no insurance provider and more importantly no provider contract backing you up. So you'd have to face the full force of the non-discounted price of those services. You'll face the same problem even with insurance if you go out-of-network, where the provider does not have contracts and therefore will only cover up to a certain amount that they would normally pay out for a similar service, requiring you to cover the rest of the amount of whatever the doctor decided to bill for that particular service. Without that insurance contract preventing the doctor from billing you the remainder of what they'd normally charge, you'll likely be slapped with a bill for that remainder. Directing back at your original question: there is no reason that a medical provider would ever legitimately bill someone a different amount because they are insured or not, thus there are no laws preventing it. It's that they already agreed to accept this certain amount from patients covered under this specific insurance. Again, they bill every patient the same amount - the insurance company is just saying "we're giving you this much and the rest of this, yeah that needs to go away." If you've ever looked at an EOB (Explanation of Benefits) from your insurance company, you'll see that the actual billed amount from the doctor is almost always much, much higher than what is actually paid out by you or the insurance, often known as the insurance discount. Maybe you'd rather think of it as a coupon?
Yes, barring any statutory prohibitions against such a rule. I would be very surprised if any existed. They don't exist in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Look up the local by-laws to be sure.