Instructions in the attached files

Instructions in the attached files
Please write a feedback for each section. Each feedback should be 4-5 sentences for each SECTION SECTION 1 The question above: Stacey is a college student whose career goal is to become the CEO of a large company that designs and sells educational toys. She tells you she will not enroll in an employment law class because she wants to limit her course selections to those that are relevant to her goals. What do you think about her statement? Jessica, the CEO of a large New York City company, tells Stacey (from the question above) she should have a basic understanding of employment law. She also tells Stacey she can obtain the necessary knowledge by consulting the volumes of books Jessica has owned for years, which include the text of all New York state laws. What do you think about this advice? Answer:  We believe that Jessica’s advice was headed in the right direction but was still not enough. If Stacey’s goal is to become a CEO of a large company, she should have a strict and not basic understanding of employment law. Though Jessica’s books would be of great help to Stacey, she should also encourage her to take an employment law course to further her knowledge in the subject. As an aspiring CEO, Stacey will encounter a variety of situations, including, recruiting, hiring, managing, and training employees, which all have rules/laws within their process. Stacey will be responsible for many employees, and taking a course, as well as reading many books, will assist her in handling all possible situations as a CEO. “… there are individuals in every industry who are responsible for supervising other employees, and these professionals will benefit from possessing knowledge about how to effectively hire, manage, and fire employees in a manner consistent with the law,” (Rassas, 2020). Though Jessica’s advice was not bad, it was still very broad, and suggesting an employment law course to Stacey would have made her advice a bit stronger.  An employment law course would further extend off the subject of business and management which is beyond necessary for being a CEO. We think taking an employment law course should be included in courses to be selected because although minorly far-fetched, being something like a lawyer includes being “in charge” of certain aspects, much like the position of a CEO. In accordance with the question of “what is employment law?”–” it is an area of legal practice that relates to everything that we do in the world of work” (2022). This includes the relationship between employers and employees, this can also be called labor laws. Included too with employees and employers, is a union. This can delve into the responsibility of being in charge of making managerial decisions, as you sit at the top of the ladder. As previously stated, if Stacey doesn’t obtain the necessary means to fully understand the position of being a CEO through all aspects, figuratively speaking she’d make it three steps forward rather than five. With the goal of making children’s educational toys, one may think of LEGOS, blocks, number-related toys, or any other toy that will drive a child to use their brain. If Stacey wants to be a CEO for children’s toys, she needs to be aware of the laws involved, the warnings, the hazards, and anything that could negatively affect children. As a CEO Stacey would have employees that need to as well have a proper understanding of laws and other factors that protect the children. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the safety standard of toys is under the “ASTM F963-17” (Toy Safety Business Guidance & Small Entity Compliance Guide 2022). This is a mandatory children’s toys safety rule that addresses all the safety hazards and requirements for children’s toys. This can be called a law, by which having an employment law course for a more well-rounded understanding would be beneficial.  All in all, while having the information provided in an employment law class would be extremely beneficial to someone who desires the role of a CEO, the information is not required to know and there are other ways to gain this information; henceforth deeming it recommended. Do you think a terminated employee would have a valid invasion of privacy claim against an employer who reads the emails sent to his personal Yahoo! account accessed through his work computer? What factors would you consider when making a decision? Answer:  The terminated employee would most likely not have a valid invasion of privacy claim against his employer. Even though it seems incorrect and can be viewed as an invasion of privacy for an employer to read an employee’s personal emails, there are many factors as to why under the current circumstances, the employee does not have a strong case. First, the terminated employee was using his personal email account on a device that is strictly meant for work. The computer is property of the employer and not of the employee, already weakening the employee’s case because employers have many legitimate reasons for monitoring the equipment. “For example, an employer may monitor an employee’s computer to ensure that the system is updated, to address network issues, and to engage in virus checks,” (Rassas, 2020, p.414). Also, there have been many cases where some employees end up using their work computers for horrific reasons that are often crimes, including, child pornography, or cyberbullying. In order for the employer to protect him/herself and his/her company, monitoring work devices is important.  It should also be noted that most, if not all companies will give a notice, whether verbal or a document that requires signing, stating certain policies in the company. “If an employer can show that an employee was on notice of and consented to its monitoring policy, this will undermine the employee’s claim that it was reasonable to assume privacy rights existed in the area or matters of concern the policy covered,” (Rassas, 2020, p.408). These company policies will tend to explain that work emails and even internet browsing on a work computer/device is subject to monitoring and will most likely be searched through. “​​In the handbook, employers can explain the specific parameters of a monitoring policy and what employees can expect will and will not remain private,” (Rassas, 2020, p.410). If the employee gives a verbal understanding or signs a document, they are therefore accepting the company policies and cannot make future claims should situations like the terminated employees’ arise.  The situation mentioned in the question, though seeming disrespectful and uncalled for, will not be for a valid invasion of privacy because it is possible that the employee signed, gave verbal, implied or expressed consent to his employer about the company policy, which could include the allowing of monitoring on all work devices. It is also possible that the employer felt the need to search through the terminated employees’ emails because he felt that the employee was participating in something illegal or wrong while using the work computer and could even be the reason why he was let go.  References: Rassas, L. B. (2020). Employment Law (4th Edition). Aspen Publishing. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781543816716 SECTION 2 Week 3, Chapter 17, Discussion 2, Question 7, page 466 Ace is frustrated by the fact that his employees take no pride in their work, so he revises his company handbook to require that all employees be professional at all times, regardless of whether they are “on the clock.” Do you have any concerns about this policy? Answer:  It is apparent that the way employees conduct themselves “off the clock” doesn’t matter as much as it would if they were “on the clock”, but still holds importance in the sense of reputation. It was drawn to our attention that what one does outside of work cannot be controlled by an employer but should still be considered and relatively modest. That does not mean not having a good time, but rather a lesson for life in general–modesty. For example an action or behavior that would “jeopardize an employer’s business operations by creating negative publicity” (Rassas, 2020), doesn’t create a self image most would desire personally, or company/business wide. As a younger adult, or more likely adolescent, there is a larger interest in “getting away with things” and figuring out how to do so. Whereas as an adult, consequences are likely known, and if something goes terribly wrong, likely it was a mistake, or poor choice. In adulthood, repercussions matter to most, whereas as a teen, consequences more likely just roll off one’s shoulder. The idea of modesty and self-regulation hasn’t really developed yet.  There is a large concern though, of freedom. An employer may not control to much extent what one does. If an individual chooses to act unprofessional outside of work, then that is their personal choice. Relative to behavioral choices, employers can place requirements of no drug use for example, depending on one’s job. If an employer decides to make an employee take a drug test, and the employee fails, then that too, is on them. When rules are set in place, there is a choice. Your boss isn’t going to follow you home, so they cannot see what you do behind closed doors. Pride in one’s job can be relevant to conduct by means of understanding actions have consequences where if one cares about their job they may make a better choice.  The commission of crimes for example, is another story. That is mala in se, in and of itself. Moreover, our book poses the example of an employee committing petty theft, where this was significant due to the nature of the employee’s job–where he’d need to be in hotel rooms, unsupervised. This is a scenario where one’s actions can negatively affect self image. Some jobs require trust, confidentiality, and honor. Many employees have access to places not everyone does, where in that case, integrity should be upheld.  While our Constitution grants us freedom, if off duty conduct renders an impact on other employees or the company/place of employment directly, we’ve agreed it makes sense that the handbook would be altered to require employees to be professional at all times. At the same time however, the word “professional” may be the wrong choice. Does that mean one cannot dance and sing in a park while listening to music with their friends, because this would be seen as “unprofessional” while one is on the clock? Another term/idea that would make sense would be “use common sense,” or “keep your reputation in mind when you are not on the clock.”  The encompassing idea of discipline also holds heavy weight. A good employee, a solid member of a company, business etc, will hold discipline and self-regulation. A poor employee on the other hand would likely display charactaristics of disorder. What defines taking pride in one’s work? Attempting to regulate “off the clock” hours doesn’t equal taking pride in one’s work. Seems like a fallacy, as one doesn’t equal the other. There is always going to be competing interests between the employer and employee, and we are concerned that trying to mediate the behavior of adults will not succeed. According to Florida International University, “The off-duty lifestyle discrimination statutes represent an attempt at legislatures” (Hausdorff, 2020)  in balancing these differences.  Bottom line here we’ve agreed on is there is no doubt that an employer has a say in the conduct of their employees while “on the clock,” but their control over “off the clock” conduct is very limited.  “Professional” is the wrong word to depict the point of carrying pride about your reputation to the public eye in reflection of your place of employment Section 3 1. Romeo likes to drive his souped-up Trans Am around the high school parking lot, racing the motor, accelerating rapidly, and stopping on a dime. He arrives at school one winter morning, speeds across the parking lot, and screeches to a halt in a parking space, hoping to impress the ladies with his hotshot driving. Unfortunately, the parking lot is icy; the rear end of the car skids out of control, jumps the curb sideways, and knocks Thibault to the ground. Has Romeo battered him?  We will be laying out the premises of a battery claim that will be referred to later on in our response. Under Florida Statute 784.03 battery occurs under two circumstances. It happens when a person “(1) Actually, and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other.” For example, if a husband viciously smacks his wife because he disagrees with her. The following condition for battery occurs when one “(2) Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.” One must intentionally know that they are about to touch and/or strike another person for it to be a battery.   The Restatement explains how “…the actor must intend ‘the consequences’ of the act… The consequence to which 8A refers is the harmful or offensive contact itself, not the injuries that result from it” (Glannon 2020, p.8). In the case of Lambertson v United States, 528 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1976) the defendant acted in horseplay manner when he ran behind a worker, jumped on his back and pulled his hat over his eyes. This action led the worker to fall in a forward motion that evidentially led to him getting caught on meat hooks that caused serious bodily harm. The court found that because the inspector intentionally jumped on his back, he committed the crime of battery. However, when applying this legal standard to the case it is clear that Romeo did not commit the crime of battery against Thibault because although he meant to speed across the parking lot, he did not intentionally mean to knock Thibault to the ground with his souped-up Trans Am. References  Glannon, J. W. (2020). The law of torts. Wolters Kluwer.  Lambertson v United States, 528 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1976)  West’s F.S.A. § 784.045    Chapter Seven, Question One: Costard, owner of a large estate, throws an all-day party for a few hundred of his close friends. During the day, some of his guests wander through the woods and come to an abandoned quarry on the property, which has filled up with water. They opt for a dip. Trinculo is injured when he dives into the quarry and hits his head on a submerged promontory only three feet under the surface. He sues Costard for negligence.   Costard argues that he was not negligent, since, though the injury was foreseeable, filling in the quarry was prohibitively expensive. In Hand formula terms, the burden was too great given the relatively low risk of injury to a wandering entrant on the property, which is normally not open to outsiders. What is the problem with this argument?  We will be laying out the premises of a negligence claim that will be referred to later on in our response. Commonly, negligence is divided into four categories: “(1) a duty of reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) resulting damages” (Glannon, 2020, p. 119). It’s the plaintiff’s duty to prove all four of these elements to prevail in their claim of negligence. It is important to note that one can act in a negligent manner while not being liable for negligence. Acting in a negligent manner simply means that one is failing to “exercise reasonable care under the circumstances” (Glannon, 2020, p.119).  Applying the fact pattern to this standard will allow us to see why we should question the validity of Costard’s argument. “As we stated earlier in this opinion, a property owner owes the greatest duty of care to invitees” Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 1972). Any court would find that an individual who is considered a close friend and is attending a party is by any means an invitee (Trinculo) and is therefore afforded the highest duty of care by the landowner (Costard). Any reasonable landowner would likely advise against diving into a quarry, and admitted the injury was foreseeable. Under the applicable standard, any landowner “must not willfully and wantonly injure a trespasser; he must not willfully and wantonly injure a licensee, or intentionally expose him to danger; and, where the visitor is an invitee, he must keep his property reasonably safe and protect the visitor from dangers of which he is, or should be aware” Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146, 147 (Fla. 1972).   Since Costard has admitted that the injury was foreseeable and should have acted to prevent such an injury from occurring, any lawyer would be able to prove that a breach of duty occurred. The cause of the injuries and the injuries themselves should be inherently apparent, which satisfies all the elements required to bring about a negligence claim against Costard. Costard’s defense seems inherently irrelevant given the circumstances. His explanation of how he used the Hand formula to justify why it’s unreasonable to fill in the quarry may be entirely true but is not applicable to the given situation and therefore by no means makes him exempt from liability. The basis for his Hand formula explanation is based on wandering entrants to his property, a group of which Costard was not a member. Trinculo was an invitee to an all-day party being thrown on Costard’s property. His defensive claim of not being negligent is based on inapplicable facts based on the given information.   SECTION 4 Assume again that O’Connor relies on the violation of the lighting statute to prove Cheever’s negligence. Cheever testifies that he was aware of the burnt-out bulb, but had asked Porter, another tenant, to replace it, and Porter had told him that he would do it right away.  Assume that West Dakota applies the negligence per se with excuse approach, but that it only recognizes the five excuses listed in the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 15 (see p. 147). How will the negligence issue be resolved? In this scenario, the negligence issue is resting on whether Cheever’s excuse – that he had asked another tenant, Porter, to replace the lightbulb – is a valid excuse pursuant to the excuses allotted under the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 15.  The Restatement (Third) of Torts § 15 recognizes five categories of excuses that could provide a defense to a negligence issue. The following excuses are those in which would not be relied upon by Cheever:  “(a) The violation is reasonable in light of the actor’s childhood, physical disability, or physical incapacitation;  (b) the actor exercises reasonable care in attempting to comply with the statute; (d) the actor’s violation of the statute is due to the confusing way in which the requirements are presented to the public; …(e) the actor’s compliance with the statute would involve a greater risk of physical harm to the actor or to others than noncompliance,” (Glannon, p. 149).  The only possible excuse Cheever could try to use in his defense would be, “(c) the actor neither knows nor should know of the factual circumstance that renders the statute applicable,” (Glannon, p. 149).  Cheever is not incapacitated or disabled, he was aware of the lightbulb being out which violated the statute, the statute is not ambiguous or confusing, and lastly, there is no validity to the fact that Cheever replacing the lightbulb would pose a greater risk of physical harm than by not replacing it.  Cheever could argue in relation to (c) of the excuses, that he asked Porter to replace the bulb and therefore acted with reasonable care to comply with the statute. However, it is unlikely that this excuse would work for his situation. In the end, whether Cheever provided a reasonable excuse to prove that he acted with reasonable care would be left in the hands of the jury as none of the five categories of excuses fit well for Cheever’s defense.  Assume that West Dakota applied the “presumption of negligence” approach. How would the negligence issue be resolved? According to the Glannon, there is not a clear difference between the presumption of negligence and the Restatement approach. The purpose of the presumption of negligence approach is to treat violation of a statutory standard of care as evidence of negligence. Under this approach evidence that the defendant violated a statute is admissible at trial and a jury is not compelled to find a defendant negligent, even in the absence of rebutting evidence from the defendant. In this scenario, if West Dakota applied the presumption of negligence approach, they would be placing the burden of proof on O’Connor. Whether Cheever offers evidence of an adequate reason for the violation or not, the burden of proof remains on O’Connor. In the scenario that Cheever does offer an excuse, the jury is still left to assess the conduct under the reasonable person standard.   To reference back to the question, Cheever does offer an excuse. Cheever’s excuse is that he asked another tenant, Porter, to replace the lightbulb. By applying the presumption of negligence approach, O’Connor must provide evidence to convince the jury that Cheever did not act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances.