Law & Ethics Essay

BB General PartnershipDracca is adequate to(p) to look to recover from Silva canescent distributively on the judgment for BB federation beca make use of the partnership has non been incorporated. In a ecumenic partnership each individual brush off be sued for the full amount of the exertion debt. The partners can non absorb personal interest in spite of appearance the partnership (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 729). If iodine partner incurs wholly of the debt, they can then sue the new(prenominal) partners for their parts of the debt. Within a check Liability Partnership these three items would dissent from the general partnership. 1. Limited partners do non play an active role in the telephone line2. Limited partners are non personally li fit3. Limited partners tone slightly various tax rules (NOLO) BB is non a formalized keep caller-out below the laws of corporation and taxation, so in farm each individual can be held li equal for the debt legally. However, Dra cca should not have at rest(p) after Ms. Grey solely on a tip of her wealth. product line notion traffic patternThe Business ideal Rule states that as long as the progress members have acted in good credence and meet the basic standards, there should not be a fear of criminal prosecution when making decisions (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 801). To insure that the board of directors did not fault their certificate of indebtedness of pity and the Business Judgment Rule several items mustiness(prenominal) be analyzed.1. Were the directors interested in the transaction?2. Did the directors act in good assurance? 3. Did the directors act in a elan that cannot be attributed to a rational nominate? 4. Did the directors reach the decision by a negligent summons? (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.801). The board must also consider their commerce of care and duty of loyalty. Duty of care requires batch involved in the alliance to rile informed and reasonable decisions for the business. Duty of loyalty requires employees to act in good assurance and in good interest of the company (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 799).In the chance of Dracca vs. BB, the board did not act in good duty of care, duty of loyalty or use the Business Judgment Rule appropriately. The overall concept to obtain the debt from BB was an action of duty or care and loyalty to the company. However, the office the board of directors went well-nigh the retrieval of the debt was not the best method. By pursuing Ms. Gray off a tip the monetary fund backfired and the company incurred a lot of fees that aptitude not of occurred if the pursue was planned correctly. The process of pursuing the money was neglected, fault minute three in the Business Judgment rule. mesh DiscriminationThe accounting tutor for Dracca overseeing the BB account, Martin Long had his pay and responsibilities decreased by Accounting Director Mary smith. The pertain Employment probability Commission (EEOC) was develop to he lp employees against discrimination of age, sex, race, gender, national origin, disability, and theology (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.466). In Martin Longs case he left wing the company because Ms. metalworkers visual and vocal opinions. The opinions saturnine into torture and stilltually Long left the Firm. By vocalizing and placing visual signs Ms. Smith was creating a harsh work milieu for employees.Long go away be able to sue Dracca for appointment discrimination and make discover constructive discharge because there must be evidence of unpleasant operative condition that it forces the employee to resign and the employer has not taken care of the complaint within 15 days of being informed of the issues. The harassment must be worse than title of respect seven-spot (Runkel, n.d.). Dracca is responsible for Ms. Smiths actions/discrimination against Long. Kate was fired after reportage to the EEOC the harassment from Ms. Smith. Kate should not of been fired for reporting the discrimination. Due to Draccas action upon flame Kate, the company seems to ap lift of Ms. Smiths actions. The EEOC Compliance Manual states that the person file the complaint is protected against retaliation by a respondent for participating in the statutory complaint proceedings even if that complaint involved a different covered entity (Igasaki, 1998).From the EEOC, Dracca would be held liable for Hernandezs actions within the court system. Hernandez violated the EEOC title of respect VII discriminatory actions. The Title VII makes two theories clear to businesses. 1. The theory of disparate treatment and 2. The theory of disparate impact. different treatment means that the plaintiff has to get up that the employer intentionally discriminated against him/her denying a benefit of calling (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.471). Disparate impact is when employers make usance decisions establish on selection, making employers pick out test and evaluations.BFOQ stands for Bona Fide Occupational that an employer must prove that the type of person is not able to perform the job position. In this case, women with children were employ in order to sell the product. Dracca would have to prove that men were not able to perform the job. The BFOQ cannot be used as a defense when there is a preferred gender within the company. The future(a) also apply. Usually BFOQ is not based on color and gender will not qualify when the 1. Assumptions of the comparative employment characteristics of women in general, 2. Stereotyped characteristics of the sexes, and 3. The preferences of coworkers, employers or customers for one gender or the other (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 485). terminalAfter reviewing the case, I recommend the side by side(p)1. Dracca lease new board members with a focus on the business, and not a focus on money. The Board of Directors should be compiled of people that are business labor and care about the firm and about the financials in a legal and ethical manner. By the Board leaning on a tip and not fact, the business incurred a lot of debt that could have been washed-out roundwhere else within the firm. 2. Dracca should have a firmer hiring process where the prospects are asked to observe and wangle for a day, or write out a list of goals, or how to hire people for certain positions. This could show some speculation to discrimination. Also, Dracca should be stricter on company policy regarding religion, politics, and harassment. If need be the company can have classes on what is and is not harassment within the workplace. In this case, it seems that Dracca off a blind eye on Mr. Long.ReferencesBagley, Savage (2009 Feb. 5). Managers and the Legal Environment Strategiesfor the twenty-first Century, Retrieved from http//online.vitalsource.com/books/1111439885/S3.2/25 Igasaki, P., (1998), The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Directives Transmittal, Retrieved from http//www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.htm Runkel, R. (n.d.), Constructive Discharge 9, law of nature Memo First in Employment Law. Retrieved from http//www.lawmemo.com/101/2005/12/constructive_di.html