In: Operations Management
13. Rojan (Roy) worked for the Metropolis City Government. One day at work a co-worker approached him and asked whom he planned to vote for as mayor in the next election. Roy told his colleague that he didn't think much of either candidate, and he didn't plan on voting for either one. The next day Roy's boss fired him because he felt that Roy should not have expressed any negative views about elected officials. Roy plans to file a lawsuit against the city based on its violation of his federal constitutional freedom of speech right. If Roy files his lawsuit in federal district court ( Rojan Degoey v. Metropolis City):
(A) The court may hear his case based on federal-question jurisdiction. |
||
(B) The court may hear his case based on diversity jurisdiction. |
||
(C) The court cannot hear his case because it does not have jurisdiction of this matter. |
||
(D) A and B only. |
Answer – Option (A)
The court may hear his case based on federal-question jurisdiction.
Explanation - In United States law, federal question purview is the topic locale of the United States administrative courts to hear a common case in light of the fact that the offended party has affirmed infringement of the United States Constitution, bureaucratic law, or an arrangement to which the United States is a gathering.
Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which depends on the parties coming from various states, government question ward no longer has any sum in contention prerequisite—Congress wiped out this necessity in activities against the United States in 1976, and in all administrative inquiry cases in 1980. In this way, a government court can hear an administrative inquiry case regardless of whether no cash is looked for by the offended party.