The answer is D, brainliest?
Answer: The answer is explained below
Explanation:
A layoff is a termination of an employment at the employer's will. A layoff may be either temporary or permanent and can occur for reasons such as new technology, downsizing, or changes in market conditions. In this case with regards to the question, Amina told Bryan that his service is no longer needed due to an economic circumstances. While accepting and signing a job offer, there are legal agreement which has to be made.
Here,an anticipatory breach occurs when Amina states, in advance of the due date that Bryan was meant to start the job that she intends not fulfilling the agreement of having him as a delivery man.
In this situation, Bryan can't sue Amina because it wasn't her fault that an economic situation arises. If he had left a previous job to take Amina's offer, that could have been a different case.
According to the labour welfare law, in case any employer rejects the job offer the individual can raise a concern against him. An economic conditions can come up anytime so Bryan shouldn't sue Amina.
It’s 10
Shejjejdjdjdbxhxgebnsx Dnnd hansjdbdbdbdbbdbdh
INTERESTS PROTECTED
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government. In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless specific exception applies. For instance, a warrantless search may be lawful, if an officer has asked and is given consent to search; if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; if there is probable cause to search and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect's imminent escape. On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable. However, in some states, there are some exception to this limitation, where some state authorities have granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conducts that violate the Fourth Amendment. Where there was a violation of one’s fourth amendment rights by federal officials, A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under the Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the fourth amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color of law. However, the protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.
