Did the Supreme Court accept the employer's position? ...

[Jramos095]

Did the Supreme Court accept the employer's position? Explain.

Question 2

Sarah, age 17, uses 850 of her hard-earned, summer-job money to pay cash for a diamond pendant for the senior prom. She has a wonderful time at the dance but decides the pendant was an extravagance, returns it, and demands a refund. The store has a no refund policy that is clearly stated, on a sign on the wall. There was no defect in the pendant. The store refuses the refund. When Sarah sues, she will
 a. Win 850
  b. Win 425
  c. Win, but only if she did not notice the no refund policy
  d. Win, but only if she did not think the no refund policy applied to her
  e. Lose

[InfiniteSteez]

Answer to Question 1

The Supreme Court rejected the employer's position, pointing out that the employer's argument did not take into account Section 2(7) of the Testing Act, which provides that rehabilitation is a critical component of any testing program and that rehabilitation should be made available to individuals, as appropriate.. The Court concluded that where Congress has enacted a detailed statute and has delegated authority to the Secretary of Transportation to issue further detailed regulations and the Secretary has done so, and neither Congress nor the Secretary has seen fit to mandate the discharge of a worker who twice tests positive for drugs, then the Court will not infer a public policy that goes beyond the scheme Congress and the Secretary have created.

Answer to Question 2

.A