Select two of the scenarios provided below. Analyze the facts in the scenarios and develop appropriate arguments/resolutions and recommendations. Support your responses with appropria
Make sure assignment is cited with references as shown in attachment
Legal & Ethical Scenarios
Select two of the scenarios provided below. Analyze the facts in the scenarios and develop appropriate arguments/resolutions and recommendations. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario. Do not copy the scenarios into the paper. Cite your sources in APA format on a separate page. Submit the paper to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned.
Scenario I: Employment Law
Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages. The next day, an employee told the manager that Smith made inappropriate comments about gays to Casey, a Nickels employee who was gay. Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation. In his statement, Casey reported that Smith pointed her finger and said that God does not accept gays, that gays should not be allowed to marry or have children, and that they will burn in hell. Three employees confirmed Smith’s statements.
Nickels terminated Smith's employment after concluding she had engaged in serious harassment in violation of its Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. This policy, of which Smith was aware, prohibits employees from engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on an individual's status, including sexual orientation, and provides that employees who violate the policy will receive "coaching and/or other discipline, up to and including termination.” Nickels has "zero tolerance" for harassment "regardless of whether such conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination or harassment" and treats serious harassment as gross misconduct and grounds for immediate termination.
- Smith filed suit, alleging her termination for stating that gays should not marry and will go to hell—a belief that she maintains is an aspect of her Apostolic Christian faith—constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Is she correct?
- If Smith posted the same information on her Facebook page but omitted references to the specific employee, would the outcome of her lawsuit for wrongful termination change?
Scenario II: Professional Torts
Medical malpractice is negligence committed by a physician or a pharmacist. Present an actual case of medical malpractice filed in your state court system or in the federal district court in your state. You must read the actual case and not an article about the case. You may find the case by first reading the article by researching the South University Online Library or a scholarly source on the Internet, but you will need to read and cite the actual case to receive credit.
Accordingly, respond to the following questions:
- Summarize the facts of the case.
- Provide your state's law or regulation relating to malpractice by physicians or pharmacists.
- Discuss the outcome of the case.
- Explain whether you agree with the verdict. Why or why not?
Scenario III: Agency, Employment and Torts
Brenda Byars, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped at a Radio Shack to pick up a new car charger for her smartphone. There was a long line at one of the checkout counters, but a cashier, Phyllis Richmond, opened another counter and began loading the cash drawer. Byars told Richmond that she was in a hurry and asked Richmond to work faster. Instead, Richmond slowed her pace. At this point, Byars hit Richmond.
It is not clear whether Byars hit Richmond intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the car charger, hit her inadvertently. In response, Richmond grabbed Byars by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Byars screamed for help. Management personnel separated the two women and questioned them about the incident. Richmond was terminated immediately for violating the store’s no-fighting policy. Byars sued Radio Shack, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (assault and battery) committed by its employee.
- Under what doctrine might Radio Shack be held liable for the tort committed by Richmond?
- What is the key factor in determining whether Radio Shack is liable under this doctrine?
- How is Radio Shack’s potential liability affected by whether Richmond’s behavior constituted an intentional tort or a tort of negligence?
- Suppose that when Richmond applied for the job at Radio Shack, she disclosed in her application that she had previously been convicted of felony assault and battery. Nevertheless, Radio Shack hired Richmond as a cashier. How might this fact affect Radio Shack’s liability for Richmond’s actions?
Agency and Employment Law.html
Agency and Employment Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against members of a protected class in employment decisions. Title VII, judicial decisions, administrative agency actions, and other legislation restrict the ability of employers and unions to discriminate against workers on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, or disability. Recent issues requiring the attention of employers and their legal teams include employee surveillance, drug and genetic testing, and harassment based on sexual orientation. Whistleblower statutes prohibit retaliation against employees who complain to governmental agencies about the working conditions that may violate the law.
New doctrines have been developed by courts that limit an employer’s traditional right to discharge an employee for any reason. Expect to see continued scrutiny of employer’s social media policies and electronic monitoring as these and other new forms of communication permeate the workplace. Managers who fail to adopt and enforce policies to ensure compliance with these laws put their companies at risk of fines, other penalties and damage to the organization’s reputation.
With the increased use of personal electronic devices and social media, employees and employers face important questions concerning privacy. Both parties often find gray areas when trying to determine their rights. The evolving law in employee privacy can have a tremendous impact on employers and employees.
To deepen your understanding of the concepts introduced in the lecture, consider reading some additional scholarly articles on this topic. To get you started, review the following articles, available in the SUO Library. These materials provide information that will assist you in completing assignments in this lesson.
- Ciocchetti, C. (2011). The eavesdropping employer: A twenty-first century framework for employee monitoring. American Business Law Journal, 48(2), 285–369. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2011.01116.x
- Peerce, M. J., & Shapiro, D. V. (2010). The increasing privacy expectations in employees' personal email. Journal of Internet Law, 13(8), 1–21.
- Riedy, M. K., & Wen, J. H. (2010). Electronic surveillance of Internet access in the American workplace: Implications for management. Information & Communications Technology Law, 19(1), 87–99. doi:10.1080/13600831003726374
Product liability is incurred by manufacturers and sellers of products when product defects cause injury or property damage to consumers. Product liability encompasses tort theories of negligence and strict liability, as well as breach of warranty.
Manufacturers can be liable for negligence in if they breach the duty of care in designing, manufacturing or providing adequate warnings for products. Purchasers, users and bystanders are covered as long as they did not misuse the product and were not negligent.
A manufacturer or seller is liable for breach of warranty if the quality, characteristics and safety of a product are not consistent with express or implied warranties. Parties covered vary by state.
Manufacturers, distributors and retailers may be liable for strict liability. Strict liability elements require that the
- product was defective when sold.
- defendant is in the business of selling the product.
- product must be unreasonably dangerous.
- plaintiff must suffer physical harm to self or property.
- defective condition is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.
- goods must not have been changed substantially from time of sale to injury.
Product liability refers to the liability incurred by manufacturers and sellers of products when product defects cause injury or property damage to consumers, users, or bystanders. Product liability can encompass tort recovery theories of negligence and strict liability, as well as breach of warranty.
Let’s review a scenario to learn about various aspects of product liability.
View the PDF transcript for Determining Product Liability
media/week2/SUO_MBA5005 W2 L2 Product Liability.pdf
Determining Product Liability
© 2017 South University
Page 2 of 2
Law and Ethics for Managers
©2017 South University
2 Determining Product Liability
Determining Product Liability Carlos purchases a television set manufactured by HiTech Electronics for his mother. A few days later, the television set explodes, causing considerable damage to her house. She sues HiTech Electronics for the damages the defective television set has caused. Question 1: Using which of the theories can Carlos’s mother recover her dues from HiTech Electronics? •Breach of warranty •Negligence Feedback for Breach of Warranty: That’s incorrect. A breach of warranty action is based on contract law. The contractual requirement of privity of contract necessitates that an injured person be in a contractual relationship with the seller in order to recover on a breach of warranty claim. Privity of contract specifically precludes recovery by a person not in privity with the seller. Feedback for Negligence: That’s correct. Negligence is the failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable, prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances. If a manufacturer fails to exercise due care to make a product safe, a person injured by the product can sue the manufacturer for negligence. Question 2: Carlos’s mother should highlight which of the following issues in order to prove the company’s negligence in her product liability case? •Duty of Care •Breach of Duty •Injury to the Plaintiff Feedback for Duty of Care: The defendant did not use reasonable care in designing or manufacturing its product or in providing adequate warnings. A manufacturer can be found negligent even if its product meets all regulatory requirements, because a reasonably prudent manufacturer would take additional precautions. Feedback for Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to comply with the duty to exercise reasonable care. The court considers the nature of the act (outrageous or commonplace), the manner in which the act was performed (cautiously versus heedlessly), and the nature of the injury
Page 3 of 2
Law and Ethics for Managers
©2017 South University
3 Determining Product Liability
(serious or slight) in determining whether the duty of care has been breached. Tort law measures duty by the reasonable-person standard. In determining whether the duty of care has been breached, the court asks how a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances. Feedback for Injury to the Plaintiff: The defendant failed in the duty of care, and the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the breach. In deciding whether there is causation, the court must address whether there is an actual causation and whether the act was the proximate cause of the injury. Courts use foreseeability as the test for proximate cause. Question 3: Does privity of contract apply to negligence actions in product liability cases? •Yes •No Feedback for Yes: That’s incorrect. A manufacturer is liable for the failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product, regardless of whether the injured person is in privity of contract with the negligent manufacturer. Feedback for No: That’s correct. A manufacturer is liable for its failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product, regardless of whether the injured person is in privity of contract with the negligent manufacturer.
Torts and Crimes.html
Torts and Crimes
A tort is a wrong committed against an individual. Tort law provides a mechanism to compensate injured parties who suffer a loss as a result of the wrongful actions of another party.
Torts are often associated with physical injuries, such as those suffered by a person in a car accident. A business tort is defined as wrongful interference with another’s business rights and. include concepts such as unfair competition and wrongful interference contractual relationships.
Negligence is an unintentional tort that occurs when someone suffers an injury because of the failure of another party to comply with a legal duty. To succeed in a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove all four elements of duty, breach, causation and damages.
A crime is a wrong committed against society. Criminal charges are prosecuted by the state or the federal government, not the party that was wronged. Criminal law is a powerful tool for controlling corporate behavior and encouraging ethical conduct. Crimes generally occurring in business situations are called white-collar crimes.
Primary areas of concern for managers include:
- Securities fraud
- Violation of intellectual property rights
- Insider trading
Torts are civil wrongs that result in a breach of a legal duty and causes harm to another. There are two types of torts, intentional and unintentional. An injury or loss is considered an intentional tort if the act was intentional, such as hitting someone with a baseball bat. Injury or loss is considered unintentional or negligent if the act was the result of carelessness such as bumping into someone in a crowd and causing them to fall.
View the PDF transcript for Intentional Torts and Negligence
media/week2/SUO_MBA5005 W2 L1 Torts and Crimes.pdf
© 2017 South University
Page 2 of 2
Law and Ethics for Managers
©2017 South University
2 Intentional Torts and Negligence
Torts and Crimes
Torts to Persons
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Torts to Property
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Personal Property
Disparagement of Property
Defense of Others
Defense of Property
Wrongful Interference with Contractual Relationship
Wrongful Interference with a Business Relationship
Invasion of Privacy
Elements of Negligence
Breach of Duty
Quick example of good citation and referencing
Branching Paths: A Novel Teacher Evaluation Model for Faculty Development
According to Theall (2017), “Faculty evaluation and development cannot be considered separately… evaluation without development is punitive, and development without evaluation is guesswork” (p.91). As the practices that constitute modern programmatic faculty development have evolved from their humble beginnings to become a commonplace feature of university life (Lewis, 1996), a variety of tactics to evaluate the proficiency of teaching faculty for development purposes have likewise become commonplace. These include measures as diverse as peer observations, the development of teaching portfolios, and student evaluations.
One such measure, the student evaluation of teacher (SET), has been virtually ubiquitous since at least the 1990s (Wilson, 1998). Though records of SET-like instruments can be traced to work at Purdue University in the 1920s (Remmers & Brandenburg, 1927), most modern histories of faculty development suggest that their rise to widespread popularity went hand-in-hand with the birth of modern faculty development programs in the 1970s, when universities began to adopt them in response to student protest movements criticizing mainstream university curricula and approaches to instruction (Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis, 1996; McKeachie, 1996). By the mid-2000s, researchers had begun to characterize SETs in terms like “…the predominant measure of university teacher performance […] worldwide” (Pounder, 2007, p. 178).
Today, SETs play an important role in teacher assessment and faculty development at most universities (Davis, 2009). Recent SET research practically takes the presence of some form of this assessment on most campuses as a given. Spooren et al. (2017), for instance, merely note that that SETs can be found at “almost every institution of higher education throughout the world” (p. 130). Similarly, Darwin (2012) refers to teacher evaluation as an established orthodoxy, labeling it a “venerated,”
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1681
American Association of University Professors. (n.d.). Background facts on contingent faculty positions. https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts
American Association of University Professors. (2018, October 11). Data snapshot: Contingent faculty in US higher ed. AAUP Updates. https://www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshot- contingent-faculty-us-higher-ed#.Xfpdmy2ZNR4
Anderson, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS: Political
Science and Politics, 30(2), 216–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/420499
Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Are student ratings of instruction useful? American Psychologist,
53(11), 1223–1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.11.1223
Attiyeh, R., & Lumsden, K. G. (1972). Some modern myths in teaching economics: The U.K.
experience. American Economic Review, 62(1), 429–443. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1821578
Bachen, C. M., McLoughlin, M. M., & Garcia, S. S. (1999). Assessing the role of gender in college students' evaluations of faculty. Communication Education, 48(3), 193–210.
Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656–665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0622.214.171.1246
Becker, W. (2000). Teaching economics in the 21st century. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
14(1), 109–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.1.109
Benton, S., & Young, S. (2018). Best practices in the evaluation of teaching. Idea paper, 69.
Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62.
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.