There are many things that are currently happening within the legal realm, some of which you may have heard about while some not. When it comes to law, unless you are an active practicing lawyer, there are things that will for sure pass without you ever noticing that they did. As such, it is of utmost importance, more so if you belong to the class of people who are ever in pursuit of new knowledge, to keep checking with law blogs from time to time as they may be your only source of information regarding to what is currently happening. Additionally, consider subscribing to at least one law blog by signing up for their newsletters; as this will give you unlimited access to their content in a rather expedient way whenever there is something new to share.
This article, however, is determined to give you an insight on two somewhat unique things you need to know. One of them is FDA’s stand on Cosmetics while the second one involves a story of one Jewish nurse (Rebecca Shirrell) lawsuit she filed against her employer (St Francis Med.Ctr) on 7/16/2015 based on claims that her work was terminated on ground that she was Jewish; the plaintiff lost the case.
Religious Discrimination Claim, and when exactly are you Eligible for a claim?
Before we dive into Shirrell’s case, first let us familiarize ourselves with matters that govern religious discrimination claims. Drawing this argument from Title VII, a plaintiff is required to either show direct evidence or create a deduction of discrimination, or reprisal as McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework demands. For those not familiar with McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is basically a framework that expects one to link the actions done to them or done by them as related to thinks that are attached to them or to the other party. As such, in a case such as Sherrill’s, the employer had a burden of showing that her reasons for terminating Sherrill’s job, were non-discriminatory, and that had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s religion affiliation. The jury ultimately ascertained that the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s work solely based on her breach of contract and not because she was Jewish. Sherrill failed to link her termination to the claims she made against her employer, hence lost the case.
What you all ought to know about religious discrimination claims is that it is not enough to point to an offensive statement as your key evidence of discrimination and anticipate winning, especially, if the action(s) committed to you took months before being committed.
FDA’s Stand on Cosmetics
FDA’s job as many of you know is to inspect and clear drugs and food product after finding them fit for human use and consumption respectively. Cosmetics is generally not drugs, and thus require no monitoring from FDA but recently, FDA has been seen to appear as though they are monitoring them. Before we get down to why FDA is refusing a number of cosmetics products, let’s first get it right with FDA definition of the terms, drug, and cosmetics.
Cosmetics, as described by FDA, are the product specifically designed for the purposes of promoting attractiveness, beautifying, cleansing and/or altering the appearance. A Drug according to the FDA, is a product meant for use in the identification, cure, mitigation, management or prevention of disease, or meant to affect any function or structure of the body.
Therefore the only reason why FDA can reject a cosmetic product is when a drug oriented claim is attached to it, such as healing.
In order to prevent this from occurring manufacturers are advised to be careful when labeling their products and not to under whatsoever circumstances misbrand their product.
For more legal like news, as mentioned earlier, keep visiting law blogs.