Official claim of responsibility. The passengers at istanbuls airport scrambled terrified as three gunmen attacked the airport. Two were they National Terminal and the 3rd in a parking lot. The preliminary findings suggest all three opened fire before detonating explosive vests. Video from inside the terminal shows people fleeing bright flashes and in one clip, a gunman is apparently shot by Security Officer and drops to the floor. A few seconds later, there is an explosion. Witnesses describe the sense of confusion and fear inside the airport. I tried to keep as calm as possible but you know there was a lot of people falling down on the grounds and not knowing what is going on. I just recognized the gunshots and heard this huge explosion and i knew immediately it was a bomb. And i just bolted as fast as i can. Multiple u. S. Officials say isis is suspected to behind the attack but there has not yet been a claim of responsibility. The terrorists have called for attacks in the holy mont
Florida’s tax-free holiday for “disaster preparedness” started just days ago, and residents are quickly taking advantage of the opportunity to shop for supplies in advance of Hurricane.
It is widely known that employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for engaging in "protected activity." But what is "protected activity?" Unfortunately, the definition.
Nassar standard of but-for causation in contexts other than FWA retaliation claims. For example, in
Palm Beach County School Board v. Wright, 217 So. 3d 163, 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an adverse judgment entered against an employer in a Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) retaliation claim, holding that
Nassar compelled the court to adopt a but-for causation standard. And while before
Chaudhry no Florida court had considered the effect of
Nassar on FWA retaliation claims, the federal courts that had had generally recognized that
Nassar mandated a change in the causation standard.
See, e.g.,
Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 546 F. App’x 829, 833 n.2 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that on remand, the district court “may need to consider whether [the plaintiff] ha[d] sufficiently satisfied ‘but for’ causation in [the] case”).