Prohibiting the Sale of Beer Through Drive-Up Windows
TN Attorney General Opinions
Date: 2010-11-19
Opinion Number: 10-113
In this opinion, the Attorney General distinguishes between Class A counties and Class B counties, cities, and towns. Class A counties have the authority to create beer boards and issue beer permits, but do not have the statutory authority to deny beer permits based solely on the sale of beer through drive-up windows, drive-through service, or curb service. Class B counties also have the authority to create beer boards and issue permits, but they have also been granted broad discretion to regulate, restrict, or prohibit beer sales.
Based on these classifications, the Attorney General concludes that while a Class B county (or municipality) would be able to deny permits to applicants who want to sell beer through drive-up windows, this type of restriction could not be imposed by a Class A county's local beer board rule or decision.
The full opinion is available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/AG/2010/ag_10_113.pdf
Friday, November 19, 2010
Court Reviews Employee's Discharge for Violating Company Policy
ALBERT J. HALE, v. JAMES NEELEY, COMMISSIONER, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. November 19, 2010)
Claimant, an employee of Wal-Mart, was charged with possession of cocaine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor possession, and was then discharged for violating company policy. Claimant was not at work nor on Wal-Mart's property when the offense occurred.
The agency found that claimant was discharged under disqualifying conditions and denied unemployment benefits. Throughout the appeals process, denial of benefits was upheld.
On appeal to this Court, we hold that claimant violated Wal-Mart's policies by failing to report his conviction under a criminal drug statute to his employer within three days as required under the employer's policy. We affirm the denial of unemployment benefits to claimant.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/halea_111910.pdf
Claimant, an employee of Wal-Mart, was charged with possession of cocaine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor possession, and was then discharged for violating company policy. Claimant was not at work nor on Wal-Mart's property when the offense occurred.
The agency found that claimant was discharged under disqualifying conditions and denied unemployment benefits. Throughout the appeals process, denial of benefits was upheld.
On appeal to this Court, we hold that claimant violated Wal-Mart's policies by failing to report his conviction under a criminal drug statute to his employer within three days as required under the employer's policy. We affirm the denial of unemployment benefits to claimant.
Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/halea_111910.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)