• SERVICE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Kathy E. Adams v. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of State

Disqualification from Foreign Service on ground of physical disability -  Prohibition of discrimination in employment: 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B)(ii) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 -  Whether a prospective employee can sue an employer for discrimination in employment on ground of physical disability

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibits federal agencies from discriminating in employment against disabled individuals-including those with a "record of" a disability. Therefore, if an employer discriminates against an employee on the basis of a physical or mental impairment, or the record thereof, and if the impairment in fact qualifies as a "disability" under the Act, i.e., it substantially limits or once limited a major life activity, then the employer may be vulnerable to a charge of employment discrimination.

• EVIDENCE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States of America v. Melvin Eric George

Right to cross - examine prosecution witness - Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to U.S Constitution - Whether court is vested with discretion to allow or not allow cross-examination of a prosecution witness by defence

The right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental guarantee of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, a violation of this right is reversible error unless the government shows it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a trial court retains broad discretion to control cross-examination. The court may prevent questioning that does not meet the basic requirement of relevancy. In particular, defense counsel must have a reasonable basis for asking questions, which tend to incriminate or degrade the witness.

• CONSTITUTION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TENTH CIRCUIT

Jennifer Couture v. Board of Education of The Albuquerque Public Schools

Seizure or restriction of movement of student with special needs and behavioural problems in school - Fourth Amendment to U.S Constitution - Whether seizure of student by school authorities was unreasonable and violated Fourth amendment right of said student

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Amendment is now understood to apply within the school setting and it is not limited to actions taken for law enforcement purposes. However, Law compels students to attend school, which deprives them of a level of freedom of mobility. Once under the control of the school, students' movement and location are subject to the ordering and direction of teachers and administrators. Therefore, to qualify as a seizure in the school context, the limitation on the student's freedom of movement must significantly exceed that inherent in every-day, compulsory attendance.