Homework answers / question archive / Please provide feedback to 2 answers below with minimum 150 words per feedback

Please provide feedback to 2 answers below with minimum 150 words per feedback

Business

Share With

Please provide feedback to 2 answers below with minimum 150 words per feedback. Please provide the reference’s links if you use them to support your answers. Please use the pronoun "you/your" in your feedbacks. Study case: Find an article, copy, and paste the article to the discussion. Write two paragraph summary and ONE paragraph your opinion applying the law you have learned. Answers: Student 1: Terra: Summary: An unnamed staffer for State Senator Archuleta, D-Pico Rivera, alleges that Archuleta told her all about his affairs, said she was someone he might choose to date, and made inappropriate comments about her breasts while they were carpooling from a cocktails event he'd invited her to. She experienced other "uncomfortable incidents" before reporting them to Archueta's chief of staff, Wilcox, who did nothing. She then brought her claim to the Legislature's Workplace Conduct Unit, which did little before she eventually resigned her position and filed a lawsuit. She'd worked for the California legislature for 14 years and for Archueta for 1.5 years at the point at which she resigned. Archueta denies all of it, and said that, while he'd participated in the legislature's investigation, he was surprised to hear the new allegations that the staffer raised in her lawsuit. The California Senate Rules Committee was also unaware of some of the allegations raised in the lawsuit, according to Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, and the Senate appears to be at least a little embarrassed and chagrined by the case. The staffer's lawsuit itself describes the incidences in which Archuleta allegedly sexually harassed her and then claims that she experienced a hostile workplace environment after talking to Wilcox. Apparently she became a sort of pariah in her workplace and was not given reasonable assignments for her knowledge and seniority. My Opinion: This sounds like a cut and dried case of hostile workplace sexual harassment to me. He made sexual comments about her, and when she tried to do something about it she was hushed instead of being reassigned to an equal position under a different state senator. Hostile workplace is one of those things where it doesn't have to be the sexual harasser creating the problem; friends, coworkers, etc. can contribute to the hostile workplace. That seems to be what happened to her here--he started it, and then through negligence or on purpose Wilcox continued it by trying to force her to interact with Archuleta and by moving too slowly on her complaint. Although the staffer didn't experience any severe emotional turmoil according to the article, under Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc, 1994, a US Supreme Court case, Title VII protections come into effect before a person can be seriously damaged. If the staffer's workplace can be seen as being hostile or abusive, then the staffer should win her court case. (Source: Textbook, Case 24-1, page 529-530.) Former employee sues California Democrat and state Senate, alleging sexual harassment (Links to an external site.) BY HANNAH WILEY MARCH 20, 2021 11:01 AM, UPDATED MARCH 20, 2021 12:49 PM A former legislative employee for California Sen. Bob Archuleta is suing him and the state Senate, alleging she experienced workplace discrimination and retaliation after she refused the lawmaker’s romantic gestures while working in his district office. The complaint, filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, outlines incidents in which she alleges Archuleta made inappropriate comments about her breasts, detailed affairs he had and publicly reprimanded and embarrassed her. She is referred to as “Jane Doe” in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the former legislative employee experienced retaliation and ultimately had “no choice but to resign because of her intolerable working environment” after she raised complaints of sexual harassment to a superior. “What she experienced instead was that she was excluded and kind of shunned thereafter in the assignments she was given,” Doe’s Los Angeles-based attorney Carney Shegerian said. “Her voice was muted.” In an emailed statement, Archuleta, D-Pico Rivera, said the claims were “categorically false,” and that he looked forward to “disproving those allegations in court.” “My entire career, I have supported the right of every Californian to feel safe, valued and protected in the workplace,” he said. “While I would never knowingly mistreat or disrespect a female employee, I believe in their absolute right to come forward and be heard if and when they believe that standard has been violated. Every voice has value.” The former employee started working for the Legislature in 2006, according to the lawsuit, but had only worked for Archuleta for a year and a half before leaving her post in September 2020. LAWSUIT ALLEGES INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS AT OUTING Her complaint centers on Archuleta’s alleged unwanted romantic pursuit of her, but also claims a culture of sexism and gender discrimination was tolerated in the district office. In one instance, Archuleta allegedly invited the employee out for cocktails following a July 2019 work event. Over drinks, the lawsuit claims, Archuleta asked personal questions of the staffer and then invited her to a mariachi restaurant so she could “perform for him.” “Doe responded that the office could plan a staff outing, but Archuleta insisted, ‘No, no, no, just you and me,’” the complaint includes. Archuleta also that evening “bluntly drove the conversation to a discussion of his various love affairs,” the lawsuit includes. “‘I would only date my equal,” the filing alleges Archuleta said. “All my love affairs have consisted of women I felt were equals...If you just go out with a woman who does not have a professional career, they like to brag and blab, and that creates conflict, but I see you as my equal.’” The complaint claims Doe repeatedly rejected Archuleta’s alleged attempt to hold her hand during that outing. The employee and Archuleta had carpooled to the venue together, and on their drive back to the district office where she left her vehicle, Archuleta allegedly made inappropriate comments about her breasts. After other uncomfortable incidents, according to the filing, Archuleta’s chief of staff Don Wilcox issued a verbal warning to the employee for “not communicating with the senator by phone.” The aide, according to the filing, then told Wilcox about the alleged sexual harassment, and that she was “hesitant to communicate with the senator because she did not want to give him the wrong impression.” The complaint alleges Wilcox took no action in response to the concerns raised. CONTACTED ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM The employee filed a complaint with the Legislature’s Workplace Conduct Unit, which was set up in response to the #MeToo Movement as an independent investigative body to enforce employment rules in the Capitol. It contacted the employee in June 2020 regarding her claims. The aide said she was willing to participate in the investigation, according to the filing. The lawsuit, however, alleges the Workplace Conduct Unit “failed to carry out in a timely manner the very objective that formed its founding” before the staffer decided to resign. “Seeing her career derailed after 14 and a half years at this level is a very sad thing to see,” Shegerian said. “It’s just unfortunate that she has paid the price of losing her career.” Archuleta also said that he had participated in the internal investigation, but that the lawsuit “manufactures a whole new layer of gratuitous allegations” not previously raised during the probe. Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, said in a statement that the Senate Rules Committee had been made aware of “some — but not all — of the allegations in this case,” which were referred to the Workplace Conduct Unit for review. Atkins said because the lawsuit was filed before the investigation was completed, the probe is now on hold. “I treat any allegations of this nature and severity with the utmost gravity,” Atkins said. “They are troubling, to say the least. This legislative body is built on a foundation of mutual respect and integrity and we have worked tirelessly in recent years to foster a safe, diverse and respectful work environment with zero tolerance for harassment or discrimination. We also fiercely uphold the right of our employees to make their voices heard without bias or retaliation. Obviously, this is a serious matter—and the Senate will continue to take it extremely seriously.” Student 2: Randy: Costco customer can sue for alleged disclosure of erectile dysfunction medication to ex-wife, top state court says A Costco customer will be able to pursue his lawsuit alleging that his hopes of reconciliation with his ex-wife were dashed when a store pharmacist wrongly told her that his erectile dysfunction medication was ready for pickup. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday that Greg Shepherd can sue for negligent disclosure of medical information. Shepherd said Costco had wrongly filled the erectile dysfunction prescription after he was given a sample by his doctor during a checkup. He said he twice told Costco to cancel the medication because he didn’t want it. When he called to ask whether his ex-wife could pick up his regular prescription medication, the employee said she could and it was ready. The employee did not mention the erectile dysfunction medication, which had not been canceled. When Shepherd’s ex-wife went to Costco, the employee gave her both prescriptions, according to Shepherd’s lawsuit. She didn’t accept the erectile dysfunction medication, and she and the employee allegedly joked about it. When the ex-wife spoke with Shepherd, she told him that she knew about the erectile dysfunction medication and no longer wanted to be with him, ending any reconciliation effort, the suit says. Shepherd said he would never have sent his ex-wife to pick up his medication if he had known that Costco didn’t cancel the medicine. A trial judge had tossed Shepherd’s suit, ruling that Costco had immunity from damages under an Arizona law that applies when a medical disclosure is made in good faith. The judge also ruled that Shepherd’s claims were preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is known as HIPAA. The Arizona Supreme Court said the trial court was wrong on both counts. First, Shepherd did not have to allege bad faith in his lawsuit, the Arizona Supreme Court said. Costco had raised the immunity issue as an affirmative defense, and a plaintiff does not have to anticipate and address an affirmative defense in a lawsuit. Second, HIPAA does not bar state law tort claims, the state Supreme Court said. In addition, Shepherd can cite HIPAA to help establish the standard of care, the court said. On remand, Shepherd will have to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the presumption that Costco acted in good faith, as required by the Arizona immunity statute. The Arizona Supreme Court offered a definition of good faith to guide the trial court. “A health care provider acts in good faith where it acts under an honest belief, without malice or a design to defraud, or to seek an unconscionable advantage,” the state supreme court said. Shepherd’s lawyer, Joshua Carden, told Courthouse News Service that he hopes to show bad faith in Costco’s continued efforts to fill the prescription. Carden alleges, based on information and belief, that Costco gives managers bonuses based on sales. He hopes to focus part of his case on pressure to fill unwanted prescriptions after discovery to learn whether the bonus allegation is true. Summary Shepherd’s anticipations to reconcile with his ex-wife were ruined when a pharmacist mistakenly told her that the client’s erectile dysfunctional medicine were ready for pick up. After shepherd was given a sample medication during one of his checkups, he realized that Costo (pharmacy) had filled his erectile dysfunction prescription wrongly and asked them to cancel the medication since he did not want it. His wife went to the store to pick his regular prescription on his behalf. Once she was there she was given both the regular prescription and the erectile dysfunction prescription. She did not have any idea about the erectile dysfunction medicine and thus she joked about it with the employee at Costo. When shepherd’s wife got home, she told shepherd that she knew about the erectile dysfunction and she did not want to be with him anymore thus ending the reconciliation efforts. At court shepherd argued that she sent his wife to collect the medication because he knew Costo had cancelled the erectile dysfunction medication. A trial judge tossed Shepherd’s suit, ruling that Costco had immunity from damages under an Arizona law that applies when a medical disclosure is made in good faith. The judge also ruled that Shepherd’s claims were averted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is known as HIPAA.The Arizona Supreme Court on the other hand said the trial court was wrong on both counts. This was because based on information, Costo gives managers bonuses based on sales made and that might be the reason shepherd’s erectile dysfunction medication was not cancelled. Opinion As learnt earlier, a tort is an act that brings about harm or injury to another person and aggregates to a civil mistake. Injury here describes the invasion of any legal right. Costo invaded Shepherd’s legal right by disclosing his medication to the wife. The National Health Act makes it an offence to disclose patient’s information to anyone without their consent. In this case Cosmo violated that law by disclosing Shepherd’s erectile dysfunction medicine to the wife. The harm on the other hand defines a loss that an individual suffers and for this case Shepherd suffered a loss by losing the reconciliation with his wife. Therefore I think Shepherd should be monetary compensated by Cosmo for making him lose the resolution with his wife. Source Debra, C Weiss. & Randag, S. (2020). The ABA Journal Blawg 100. ABAJ, 93, 30. https://www.abajournal.com › topic › tort+law Question 1: Please provide feedback to 3 answers below with minimum 150 words per feedback. Please provide the reference’s links if you use them to support your answers. Please use the pronoun "you/your" in your feedbacks. Study case: On January 2, Wabash Construction Company, a general contractor, executed a written contract with Anderson Brick, Inc., a subcontractor. The contract relates to a major “strip mall” building project in Morgantown, and Wabash faces a deadline of October 31 in its contract with The Mackie Consortium, L.L.C., the owners of the new mall. In the agreement between Wabash and Anderson, the parties stipulate that “time is of the essence” in terms of performance of the bricklaying work, and that the deadline for Anderson’s completion of the bricklaying work is July 15. There is also a “liquidated damages” clause in the contract between Wabash and Anderson, indicating that if the work is not completed by July 15, Anderson will pay $2,000 in damages for every day the bricklaying is not completed beyond July 15. Anderson does not complete the bricklaying work by July 15. In fact, the project is not finished until August 30, and Wabash now claims liquidated damages from Anderson in the amount of $92,000 (representing 46 days beyond the July 15 deadline, multiplied by $2,000 per day.) Anderson refuses to pay the $92,000, and Wabash sues. At trial, Anderson’s attorney seeks to introduce the following evidence: 1) the testimony of Henry Anderson, Anderson’s owner, who is willing to testify under oath that at the time of the signing of the contract, Wabash’s general manager, Fred Stein, said “Pay no attention to the July 15 deadline in the contract; if you need more time, all you have to do is ask;” and 2) a crumpled index card, purportedly in Fred Stein’s handwriting, indicating “no ‘hard and fast’ deadline on Anderson brick work.” Should the trial court judge admit the foregoing evidence? Answers: Student 1: Chujian: I think the court should not admit the evidence as they do not constitute valid evidence in the eye of law. There is a written contract between the contractor and subcontractor supported by a liquidated damages clause at the time of entering into the contract. it is taken by the mutual consent and is in a written format and is legally enforceable. Where the evidence produced by the subcontractor are just on a mere piece of paper and oral are not enforceable under law. Therefore the subcontractor has the liability to pay the liquidated damages according to the written contract. You can ease contractual negotiations by requiring sufficient, reliable evidence to prove existence and specific terms of contract. Prevent unreliable, oral evidence from interfering with contractual relationship. Prevent parties from entering into contracts with which they do not agree. Student 2:Randy: If there was no physical evidence, any verbal evidence is arbitrary and dismissible in court. The only evidence Anderson had was a crumpled index card with something that looks like Fred's handwriting. This evidence can be seen as a half-ass attempt to cover Anderson's mistake by going beyond the July 15th date. Understanding contractual agreement when a deadline is proposed they as two individual parties came to a mutual agreement which is fully entailed what will be done with the construction site. Anderson came to the agreement with the deadline and what would the consequences would be if they could not completed in time. After the July 15th deadline, it is unsure if Anderson misheard something or misread the situation where he felt the deadline was not an issue. But Fred Stein's fully intend to follow though with the fullest extent with the contract and making Anderson pay for the delay of the building. Without hard evidence which can prove there was a agreement from the two parties such as, a telephone record, recording, writing, or witnesses to help prove the fact. Without proper internal control whether or not the issue was true, there is nothing at this point beyond more evidence will help Anderson prove the case he was told to ignore the date. Even if that was true, 46 days behind schedule is excessive with the size of the project, which they probably would of never came to complete the job in time anyway. In the construction business, this is truly delayed work. Student 3: Ibrahim: I think that the trial court judge should not admit the evidence as there is a written contract between the contractor and subcontractor. This is supported by a liquidated damages clause at the time they decided to enter the contract. It's a mutual consent that is in a written format which means it is legally enforceable. The evidence that was made by the subcontractor that is just on a piece of paper and is oral are not really enforceable by law. This means that the subcontractor should pay for the $92,000 dollars according to the written contract. Even if Anderson has evidence that points towards Wabash letting them know that they can have more time if they asked, Anderson Inc are the one's who went along with the project and accepted the contract. They had to of known that the contract stated when their expected deadline was. If Anderson knew they could not complete it in time, then they shouldn't of went ahead with the job and continued doing it. So I can see why Wabash decided to sue as Anderson should of payed them the money. They could not complete the job in time and Anderson should of been prepared for what would happen if they were too late.