Law & Ethics Essay Example for Free

Law Ethics EssayBB General PartnershipDracca is commensurate to seek recover from Silva Gray individually on the judgment for BB partnership because the partnership has non been incorporated. In a general partnership severally individual put up be sued for the full measurement of the pipeline debt. The partners tummy non conduct personal interest in spite of appearance the partnership (Bagley Savage, 2009 p. 729). If one partner incurs all of the debt, they can then sue the other partners for their parts of the debt. Within a Limited Liability Partnership these triplet items would differ from the general partnership. 1. Limited partners do not play an recreateive role in the problem2. Limited partners are not personally liable3. Limited partners face slightly different levy rules (NOLO) BB is not a formalized smart set under the laws of corporation and taxation, so in turn each individual can be held liable for the debt legally. However, Dracca should not have g one afterward Ms. Grey totally on a centershade of her wealth.Business Judgment practiceThe Business Judgment Rule states that as long as the game get on with members have acted in bang-up faith and meet the basic standards, in that respect should not be a fear of prosecution when making decisions (Bagley Savage, 2009 p. 801). To insure that the board of directors did not shimmy their duty of care and the Business Judgment Rule several items must be analyzed.1. Were the directors interested in the transaction?2. Did the directors act in good faith? 3. Did the directors act in a manner that cannot be attributed to a rational purpose? 4. Did the directors reach the decision by a negligent process? (Bagley Savage, 2009 p.801). The board must also consider their duty of care and duty of loyalty. Duty of care requires people knotty in the company to make informed and reasonable decisions for the business. Duty of loyalty requires employees to act in good faith and in good int erest of the company (Bagley Savage, 2009 p. 799).In the case 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 way the board of directors went about the retrieval of the debt was not the best method. By prosecute Ms. Gray off a tip the fund backfired and the company incurred a lot of fees that might not of occurred if the pursue was planned correctly. The process of pursuing the money was neglected, fault number three in the Business Judgment rule. art DiscriminationThe bill manager for Dracca overseeing the BB account, Martin Long had his pay and responsibilities decreased by Accounting Director Mary Smith. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was developed to help employees against discrimination of age, sex, race, gender, national origin, disability, and religion (Bagley Savage, 2009 p.466). In Martin Longs case he left the company because Ms. Smiths visual and vocal opinions. The opinions turned into worrying and eventually Long left the Firm. By vocalizing and placing visual signs Ms. Smith was creating a harsh fake environment for employees.Long will be able to sue Dracca for employment discrimination and argue constructive discharge because there must be evidence of unpleasant working condition that it forces the employee to resign and the employer has not taken care of the indisposition within 15 days of being informed of the issues. The harassment must be worse than Title VII (Runkel, n.d.). Dracca is responsible for Ms. Smiths actions/discrimination against Long. Kate was fired after reporting to the EEOC the harassment from Ms. Smith. Kate should not of been fired for reporting the discrimination. Due to Draccas action upon firing Kate, the company seems to approve of Ms. Smiths actions. The EEOC Compliance Manual states that the person filing the complaint is protected against revenge 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 go against the EEOC Title VII discriminatory actions. The Title VII makes two theories clear to businesses. 1. The theory of disparate interference and 2. The theory of disparate impact. Disparate treatment means that the plaintiff has to prove that the employer intentionally discriminated against him/her denying a welfare of employment (Bagley Savage, 2009 p.471). Disparate impact is when employers make employment decisions based on selection, making employers complete running game and evaluations.BFOQ stands for Bona Fide Occupational that an employer must prove that the type of person is not able to act the job position. In this case, women with children were hired in order to sel l 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 following 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).ConclusionAfter reviewing the case, I recommend the following1. Dracca hire new board members with a revolve about on the business, and not a focus on money. The Board of Directors should be compiled of people that are business savvy 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 spent somewhere else within the firm. 2. Dracca should have a f irmer hiring process where the prospects are asked to observe and manage for a day, or write out a list of goals, or how to hire people for certain positions. This could represent some speculation to discrimination. Also, Dracca should be stricter on company insurance 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 turned a blind eye on Mr. Long.ReferencesBagley, Savage (2009 Feb. 5). Managers and the Legal Environment Strategiesfor the 21st 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 Memo First in Employment Law. Retrieved from http//www.lawmemo.com/101/2005/12/constructive_di.html