3 Questions (HI)

Questions attached

Question 1:

Discuss the following: 

1. Given your understanding of the chapter reading on contract law, identify and explain the requirements and elements for a valid contract.  Legally how is a contract formed and what are some similarities and differences between common law contracts versus the Uniform Commercial Code.  Why is it important to distinguish and identify which applies when making business decisions? 

2. Using the NEXIS-Uni Legal Research Database, find and provide one breach of contract case example within the last year.  Be sure to explain the facts of the case, the parties to the lawsuit, the dispute and the outcome and remedies provided by the court.  Provide whether you agreed with the court’s decision or not.  Nexis-Uni link: 

https://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://www.nexisuni.com

Question 2:

Discuss the following:  

1. Identify and explain the forms of intellectual intangible property protection, how long they last and what remedies one can seek for an infringement of one’s intellectual property pursuant to the chapter reading.

2. Research using NEXIS-Uni Legal Database link below and provide one case example of a business lawsuit dispute involving intellectual property within the last two years.  Summarize the facts, the law in dispute and the outcome decided by the court.  Did you agree with the decision, why or why not?   NEXIS-Uni Legal Database link:  
https://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://www.nexisuni.com
 

Question 3:

This week, we will focus on two important concepts – Agency law and the ability to hold an employer liable for an agent’s actions and, the Employment-at-Will Doctrine and the protections afforded to employees from wrongful termination.  Both concepts this week are covered in upcoming assignments so be sure to have a good understanding of the law.  

SCENARIO:  As a small-business owner, you are faced with rising costs, particularly employment costs, insurance, and the like. You decide to hire Leo, your good friend to save on these costs and insurance. Leo works for 6 months dealing with vendors and buying supplies and inventory for the business. One day at lunch, Leo heads to 7-11 for a Slurpee and befriends the owner, Dan.  Leo makes a deal with Dan to sell your product, Widget’s spinners, at the 7-11 in exchange for a free Slurpee every day.  The store sells out of Widgets spinners the next day and Dan calls to demand you restock because it is bringing in lots of customers. 

Discuss the following:  

1. Given your understanding of the chapter reading this week, explain agency law and the three types of authority “relationships” that are created in the workplace between employers and employees.  In other words, the authority an employee has from the employer to act on behalf of the employer in the workplace. 

2. Was Leo authorized to contract with Dan?  Why or why not and was Dan a disclosed, parially disclosed or undisclosed principal given your understanding of these terms in the reading?  What is “scope of employment” and how is it applicable?  Be sure to explain these terms. 

3. Identify and explain what an employee-at-will is and the exceptions to firing such an employee given the law’s protections.  Research using the Legal Database and provide an example lawsuit of a wrongful firing or discharge in violation of the law.  Be sure you case is within the last two years.  Explain the facts, the parties, their arguments, the law, and the outcome of the case.  NEXIS-Uni Legal Database link:  
https://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://www.nexisuni.com
 

Question:

This week, we will focus on two important concepts – Agency law and the ability to hold an employer liable for an agent’s actions and, the Employment-at-Will Doctrine and the protections afforded to employees from wrongful termination.  Both concepts this week are covered in upcoming assignments so be sure to have a good understanding of the law.  

SCENARIO:  As a small-business owner, you are faced with rising costs, particularly employment costs, insurance, and the like. You decide to hire Leo, your good friend to save on these costs and insurance. Leo works for 6 months dealing with vendors and buying supplies and inventory for the business. One day at lunch, Leo heads to 7-11 for a Slurpee and befriends the owner, Dan.  Leo makes a deal with Dan to sell your product, Widget’s spinners, at the 7-11 in exchange for a free Slurpee every day.  The store sells out of Widgets spinners the next day and Dan calls to demand you restock because it is bringing in lots of customers. 

Discuss the following:  

1. Given your understanding of the chapter reading this week, explain agency law and the three types of authority “relationships” that are created in the workplace between employers and employees.  In other words, the authority an employee has from the employer to act on behalf of the employer in the workplace. 

2. Was Leo authorized to contract with Dan?  Why or why not and was Dan a disclosed, parially disclosed or undisclosed principal given your understanding of these terms in the reading?  What is “scope of employment” and how is it applicable?  Be sure to explain these terms. 

3. Identify and explain what an employee-at-will is and the exceptions to firing such an employee given the law’s protections.  Research using the Legal Database and provide an example lawsuit of a wrongful firing or discharge in violation of the law.  Be sure you case is within the last two years.  Explain the facts, the parties, their arguments, the law, and the outcome of the case.  NEXIS-Uni Legal Database link:  

https://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=https://www.nexisuni.com

 

Sample Answer 1

An agent relationship is created between two parties, such as an employer and employee, where one party acts/performs in the benefit of the other party. The purpose of agency law is to legally bind these parties for the promises they agreed to.

The three types of authorities that are created in the workplace between employers and employees are known as expressed, implied and apparent (Jennings, 1). According to the textbook, expressed authority can be given orally or written and is limited to the permissions that are given. Whereas implied authority is when an employee has expressed authority as well as additional permissions that are considered reasonable and necessary to perform their job duties. The final type of authority is apparent authority where someone is led to believe that the employee has the authority. Apparent authority exits by appearance (Jennings, 1).

Based on the scenario, Leo’s job entailed dealing with vendors and buying supplies and inventory for the business. Leo is not authorized to contract with the owner of 7-11, Dan,  because Leo is not performing reasonable duties for the benefit of his employer.

A disclosed principal is where a third party knows a principal is involved and knows who the principal is, and the principal is liable to the third party, but the agent is not (Jennings, 1). A partially disclosed principal is where a third party knows that the agent is acting for someone else, but the identity of the principal is not disclosed (Jennings, 1). The undisclosed principal is when an agent acts without disclosing the existence or identity of a principal (Jennings, 1).   

Based on the scenario, Dan knows Leo is selling my product and Dan calls me to demand the widget spinners to be restocked therefore Dan is a disclosed principal.

The scope of employment means that an employee is doing work for an employer at the time an offense occurs (Jennings, 1) . In this scenario, Leo is working for me and there is an offer, acceptance and consideration between Leo and Dan. The scope of employment in this scenario is applicable  because Leo was on his lunch break when he made this agreement with Dan therefore it is during Leo’s personal time and not within the scope of employment.

Most employees work at the discretion of their employer therefor they have an employment-at-will (Jennings, 1).  An employee- at-will is an employee that does not have an employment contract to determine the length of employment therefore the employee can not only change the terms of the employment but can cancel the employee with no notice.  However, there are protections for employees to include implied contract and public policy (Jennings, 1). The implied contract within a personnel handbook provides promises, procedures, and policies for the employee. The public policy and the whistle blowers who report illegal conduct are also protected.

 Sources

1. Marianne M. Jennings. (2018). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (11th ed.). Cengage.

Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel

United States District Court for the District of Hawaii

May 12, 2021

Facts: Wendy Tuomela worked for twenty years at the Grand Wailea Hotel. On April 13, 2018, Wendy was accused of theft, her locker was searched, and she was put on suspension pending investigation. On April 17, 2018, a meeting took place with Tuomela, the security guard, the human resource representative, and a union representative. The union representative advised Tuomela the only way to avoid jail would be to pay $900 and Tuomela obeyed.  Tuomela was terminated and escorted from the premises.

Parties: Wendy Tuomela, Plaintiff, vs. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel, Defendant

Arguments: Wendy Tuomela claimed that her locker was illegally searched, and contents were removed on April 13, 2018. She states her 4th amendment rights were violated and there was no probable cause, no warrant, and no documentation of items that were removed. She argued that she was confused about the allegations, had extreme anxiety and was under duress when the security guard verbally abused her and threatened to send her to jail. She entered a contract with the human resource representative to keep the circumstances of the termination confidential. Wendy agreed, accepted the terms therefore the termination contract was formed. The human resource representative breached the contract by disclosing the circumstances of Wendy’s termination to an outlet manager. The outlet manager shared the information with staff members who spread the information within the hotel and community.

Wendy Tuomela argued that she was wrongfully terminated in April 2018 after being falsely accused of theft. Due to her termination, she alleged five counts including 1) extortion, 2) breach of fiduciary duty 3) defamation of character 4) wrongful termination and 5) breach of contract.

Wrongful termination

Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel argues that allegations in count 4 and five are preempted

The Law: There were no factual allegations whether discussed or filed regarding age discrimination or whistle-blower retaliation. There is no wrongful discrimination or retaliation.

Wrongful termination is to be fired for an illegal reason.

The Outcome: Previously the courts dismissed extortion and breach of fiduciary duty with prejudice.

Judge J. Michael Seabright, Chief  United States District Judge dismissed Plaintiffs claim of wrongful termination and breach of contract with prejudice. The defamation of character is count three has been stayed pending resolution of criminal charges in a state court action.

Source:

Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90540, 2021 WL 1911885 (United States District Court for the District of HawaiiMay 12, 2021, Filed). 

https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:62ND-S6C1-F60C-X36W-00000-00&context=1516831

.

Sample Answer 2

According to the reading we know that Agency Law is governed by the common law of agency that most most states follow.  With the focus being on the creation of the agency, then the relationship between the principle and agents (employer & employee), then the relationship between the principle, agent and 3rd party (Employer, employee, & vendor). 

The three types of authority given to employees by employers. First, Express Authority which is limited by either what was written or by verbal permission allowing the employee to act on behalf of the business and the owner. Implied Authority says that unless otherwise agreed upon the employee has the authority to do act on behalf of employer to sign contracts, authorize operational changes and even the authority to make personnel changes.  Apparent Authority the power of an employee to act on behalf of a employer, even though not expressly or implied granted. The employer is held liable for the actions of the employee.

I feel that Leo was authorized to enter into a contract with Dan but because he had implied authority, However Dan obviously does not have the capacity to make good desicions by offerering to have the product put in stores for a weekly slurpee which does not benefit the employer. Implied authority refers to an employee with the jurisdiction to perform acts that are reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the employer. The employer could ultimatley have the oral contract with Dan voided. The scope of employment is that of a disclosed principle because from the paragraph we see where Leo clearly informed Dan who he was working for. We know this because when it dan sold out the spinners he called the owner to demand more.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences, except when it’s illegal without being liable for any type of damages. The employer could use this the terminate Leo from his company. 

                                                                                                     

The Case

AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 10, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — Dr. Jacqueline Lappin, a renowned transplant surgeon with over three decades of experience, has won a gender discrimination lawsuit against Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple after being abruptly terminated.

                                                                                                     

                                                                                                        Outcome

In an arbitration proceeding, the Hon. 

Catherine M. Stone

 determined that Scott & White’s allegations that Dr. Lappin, the hospital’s former division director of abdominal transplant surgery, had engaged in “conduct unbecoming a leader” and “abusive behavior” were untrue. Instead, Judge 

Stone

 found that Dr. Lappin was a victim of gender discrimination and unfair treatment by Scott & White.

“Based on my review of the record and giving due regard to the credible evidence… Dr. Lappin has established her claim for wrongful termination based on gender/sex discrimination,” Judge 
Stone
 wrote, awarding Dr. Lappin more than $300,000 .

Under American Arbitration Association rules, the award is not confidential and may be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction. Dr. Lappin has filed the award (case number AAA NO. 01-18-0002-1978) in U.S. federal court in Waco.

                                                                                                          Questions

The outcome of the case raises larger questions about the culture at the hospital and unequal treatment at the medical center.

                                                                                                   Plantiffs Thoughts

“It is uncontroverted that all other division directors are male and that none was terminated for conduct unbecoming a leader, even though several of those division directors were specifically counseled about their anger issues or ‘mistreatment’ of others,” wrote Judge 
Stone
. Dr. Lappin said she hopes her story inspires others in her situation to come forward, but acknowledges “this was a painful, costly and brutal fight.”

“Most women don’t have the means to fight back. But if you do – step up. Change must come,” she said.

Dr. Lappin joined Scott & White in 2013 as the division director of abdominal transplant surgery. At that time, the medical center was performing 20-30 kidney transplants and 1-2 pancreas transplants a year.

Under her leadership, by 2017 that number rose to 128 kidney and 10-15 pancreas transplants per year, putting Scott & White among the top three pancreas programs in Texas and earning the transplant program a “Center of Excellence” certification from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Aetna. These were just some of her accomplishments in her 4.5-year tenure.

But beginning in late 2017, Dr. Lappin found herself marginalized and accused of “disruptive” and “inappropriate” behavior. The hospital terminated her without warning in March 2018.

“I was completely gutted,” Dr. Lappin said about her termination. “I wasn’t even allowed to pack up my office. I had patients who were fresh transplants. But I was no longer allowed to treat them.”

Colleagues described Dr. Lappin as “gracious,” “professional” and “inspiring.” One called her termination “a huge loss for our community.”

Dr. Lappin said she feels vindicated by the decision, but remains troubled by her experience. She said that patient care suffers in any medical setting that has an “old boys’ club” culture – where male doctors are the power brokers, and others walk on eggshells around them.

                                                                                                   Source

(February 10, 2022 Thursday). Dr. Jacqueline Lappin wins gender discrimination case against Baylor Scott & White; Wrongful termination at Temple hospital results in award for damages. PR Newswire. https://advance-lexis-com.libdatab.strayer.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:64RR-7WY1-JB72-11B4-00000-00&context=1516831.