Class-Action Lawsuits Allege Lumber Liquidators Flooring Formaldehyde

Posted by Kyle Gatyas.

The US vendor of Chinese flooring products, Lumber Liquidators, has been facing an array of lawsuits ranging from allegations of stock price affectations to defective products. More recently, the company not only failed to meet California’s CARB-2 safety standards, but plaintiffs have also claimed exceeding levels of formaldehyde in their products. On March 5, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by John and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell because of certain symptoms they were experiencing shortly after John Tyrrell’s son-in-law installed the laminate flooring. They claimed they began having shortness of breath, weakness, fatigue, and incessant coughing and sneezing (Gibb). The lawsuit stated, “despite repeated medical tests, his doctors have not been able to identify the cause of these symptoms.” (Gibb).

The report aired on CBS News on 60 Minutes; it was said that the reason for higher levels of formaldehyde in their products was used to keep the cost down (Gibb). “According to an interview done by 60 Minutes, the amount of formaldehyde in the products is a serious threat because the toxins can escape into the air, making homeowners extremely ill.” (Gibb). The class action lawsuit permits representing any consumer who purchased the Chinese flooring products in the last four years and has had any medical complications. Reimbursement for the material and installation will also be included as damages in the lawsuit.

Kyle is currently undeclared at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

New For-Hire Vehicles Must Be Subject to State Protection – Or At Least Take the Higher Moral Ground

Posted by Taylor Gonzales.

Uber and Lyft have become new technological businesses that have gotten a lot of attention for offering taxi service straight from your phone. An app is required that allows an account to be made, linked to a credit card, where you are able to request a taxi to a certain location to bring you to another one. It is a business, however, that is not the typical taxi service. Any person who needs extra cash can be a driver when requests to the apps are made. However, the article states, “The state regulates for-hire passenger transportation through the Limousines Transportation Act 271 of 1990 and the Michigan Vehicle Code. All vehicles transporting passengers are defined as limousines under the law and must have a commercial license plate. Drivers are required to have a chauffeur’s license” (Oddy, 2015). Yet, in Michigan for-hire drivers are not required to have a chauffer’s license.

Though it is not illegal in the state of Michigan, as a business, they should realize that it does not reach the moral minimum. The law may not require such a license for their for-hire drivers, however, they should realize that this poses risks for their customers, because Uber’s and Lyft’s employees may not be qualified to fulfill the position safely and successfully. Both businesses should have created an ethical code of conduct that should be followed to ensure the upmost excellence of their business procedures and safety of their customers.

There is a contract between the customer and the provider, even with these types of business, and through that contract they should make an adjustment to ensure that each driver is properly trained and has a chauffeur license regardless of state law. In cases like this, it is not so much that they are breaking the law, but rather not running a morally and ethically stable business.

Taylor is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Trenton Paid Sick Leave Law Stands After Court Ruling

Posted by Kyle Gatyas.

On April 16, 2015, Counsel to the City of Trenton announced that “the Trenton Paid Sick Leave ordinance would only apply to businesses located in the city itself.” (Bond). They stated that they will not apply to businesses outside the borders of Trenton. This new paid leave ordinance came in effect on March 4, 2015. One thing this law does is it excludes construction unions and other employees and covers them by collective bargaining agreements from the paid sick leave requirements (Bond). Both part-time and full-time workers have the ability to be paid on their time off by the rate of 1 hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. “Employers with 10 or more employees have to provide up to five paid days each year, whereas businesses with less employees have to provide up to three paid days each year.” (Bond). There is an exception, only for workers in childcare, food service, and home healthcare who are automatically entitled to five days.

For employees, there is a certain requirement in order to be eligible to qualify for paid sick days. You must have a maximum of 40 hours per year regardless of the size of your employer. “However, they are not able to use more than 40 hours in one year. Usually, they are not entitled to carry over anytime if they were paid for the hours they did not use.” (Bond). Also, you are not eligible to qualify for this requirement until you have been working for at least 90 days. As the employees begin their employment, or as soon as they are practicable, the employers provide them with a written notice explaining their rights. “This ordinance also provides language to prohibit retaliation against employees exercising their rights” (Bond). Failing to do so creates an additional liability to the employees since the ordinance creates an explicit right to sue if an employee believes their right have been violated. “They could also face monetary fines and other penalties.” (Bond).

Kyle is currently undeclared at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Spoofing Is Illegal

Posted by Sukayna Khalifeh.

Spoofing became illegal in 2010 when an amendment stating that “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution” was added to the Commodity Exchange Act. Navinder Singh Sarao was criminally charged for this so-called spoofing, because he was allegedly driving down the price of stocks of Standard & Poor on purpose by making other traders sell their stocks, and then at the last minute, buy those stocks himself and cancel his hoaxed sell orders. He would make a profit after the price came back up and everything goes back to normal. According to the New York Times (Henning), the government also thinks that he was one of the causes that lead to the “flash crash” in May 2010, where the “Dow Jones industrial average dropped nearly 1,000 points in just a few minutes before quickly recovering.” This was proven not to be the case when the blame was actually pinned on Waddell & Reed Financial in 2010 and Sarao was still placing orders after that yet no sudden drops in the market occurred. This proves the government had made the wrong analysis.

Henning brings up a question of whether there is enough proof to call this process a fraud. If it is constituted as one, then Navinder Singh Sarao might have to be deported to Britain by the government. According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, since 2009, Sarao had made about $40 million just by spoofing. Sarao counter argues that this is just the way he trades and that he had made this estimated profit within 20 trading days. Henning also describes that the “victims of Mr. Sarao’s orders are not ordinary investors” but they are instead “sophisticated investors who use algorithms that try to predict where the market is headed.” This brings up the fact that these sophisticated or high frequency investors are most likely the ones caught with spoofing charges. So, is this actually affecting or “harming ordinary long-term investors” (Henning)? This type of fraud is still violating the law regardless of who the victims are but according to the New York Times (Henning), these high frequency investors, with their access to data about large orders, could have easily adjusted their algorithms to find out what type of orders Sarao used. In that process, they would not have fell for the scheme.

Also, it is not obligatory that once you enter an order it must be filled. According to the New York Times (Henning), “more than 90 percent [of orders] are estimated to be cancelled.” This is not considered to be spoofing since the order might be filled. Henning views this as an illustration of the “fine line between accepted practices and illegal conduct.”

In order for Sarao to be extradited to Britain, the Justice Department must prove that he had true intention of not filling the order after entering them in. Also, the British court can block this extradition if it “would not be in the interests of justice” (Henning).

According to the New York Times (Henning), this case took the prosecutors six years to put together and will take them a little while longer to find out if Sarao actually committed fraud.

Sukayna is a double major in finance and management, information and technology (MIT), Class of 2017.

Discriminating Actions Leads to a Lawsuit Against McDonalds

Posted by Jellyn Anne Echon.

In a business, it’s important to be ethical and that includes treating your co-workers/employees with respect. Unfortunately, McDonalds failed to see that. The Virginia-based franchise of McDonalds was sued by 10 former employees for allegedly violating their civil rights. The article states that, “In a lawsuit filed in federal court, the plaintiffs allege that both McDonalds and one of its franchisees violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by subjecting employees to rampant racial and sexual harassment.” Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects people against employment discrimination on the bases of race and color, along with national origin, sex, and religion.

According to the lawsuit, employees were called inappropriate names by managers as well as being sexually harassed. As far as race discrimination is concerned, according to the lawsuit, African American employees were disciplined for petty things before being fired shortly after, while the caucasian employees nearly got away with anything and were hired more. One of the plaintiffs, Katrina Stanfield, spoke about her experience and stated that, “Being a good worker didn’t matter. . . . I was fired for being black.”

In response, McDonald’s media hotline just states that,

We have not seen the lawsuit, and cannot comment on its allegations, but will review the matter carefully. . . . McDonald’s has a long-standing history of embracing the diversity of employees, independent franchisees, customers and suppliers, and discrimination is completely inconsistent with our values. McDonald’s and our independent owner-operators share a commitment to the well-being and fair treatment of all people who work in McDonald’s restaurants.

Jellyn is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

The Age of Majority Differs from State to State

Posted by Mihran Naltchayan.

Watching the news earlier, I heard a report that the juvenile ages among the states in the United States are all different. I always thought that any person eighteen or younger is considered a juvenile. That is a false assumption on my part.

In New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina, a juvenile is considered sixteen years or younger. I found this awkward because I don’t find people mature at age 16; I think after 18 years old juveniles should know between right and wrong and learn from it. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, a juvenile is age 17 or less. Wyoming is the only state that has established the age of juveniles to be 19 or younger. (Juvenile Justice 1). Everyone matures at different rates, but the average age people start maturing, I believe, is 18 years old.

“Relying on age as a sole determinant for adulthood has been criticized by many criminologists and policy makers since individuals develop at different rates.” (Juvenile Justice 2). I guess these states come up with these juvenile ages because of the environment/life they live in, but I disagree. It should be after high school, which is usually over 18, that states should be consider a person to be an adult.

Mihran is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

New Rules for Ride Services

Posted by Jenifer Canas-Benavides.

Uber and Lyft expanded their business enormously. Everyone by now has heard of at least one of these taxi like services. Why are they so popular? Uber offers a free ride of approximately $25 to their first time users with a special code. Lyft also offers the same promotion. So what is the biggest problem with services? The problem is the driver that picks up whoever requested the ride. I used Uber before, and in the back of my mind, I wondered if my driver was a safe driver or if they had no bad driving records. I’m sure many people think the same thing. That is why Governor Charlie Baker has proposed new rules for the riding services.

In the article, Governor Baker proposed a law that requires that the company make two background checks on their drivers. Massachusetts’s regulators would regulate these rules. Anyone who fails the checks would not be allowed to work for these riding services companies. Massachusetts has already seen some charges made my women who said their Uber driver assaulted them. However, the proposal does not specifically state what can disqualify a person from working for the company.

Other rules are that the cars being used will need an annual inspection to insure a safer trip. In order for this law to go in place, there needs to be some money that will need to pay for insurance, inspections, and other duties. Which are why, the taxes paid by the company will be used to offset those expenses. This proposal is still being reviewed. If passed, it would take about 6 months for the Massachusetts DPU to start making the regulations.

Jenifer is a business administration student at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Jesse Ventura Suing Chris Kyle’s Wife

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

After the release of Chris Kyle’s 2013 memoir, Jesse Ventura was very displeased to find out that Kyle was making claims about punching him in the face in 2006. Kyle did not use Ventura’s name in the book, but only referred to the incident by saying he “knocked out a celebrity.” Only in later interviews did Kyle publicly acknowledge the mystery celebrity as Ventura.

This angered Ventura especially due to the fact that he claimed that Kyle was making the story up. Ventura who was also a Navy veteran was even more displeased to find out that Kyle’s reason for hitting him, as depicted in the book, was due to Ventura making disrespectful remarks about the military. Ventura immediately took the matter to the courts. Not too long after, Kyle was killed at a shooting range and left behind a loving family and many adoring admirers.

Ventura still went ahead with the lawsuit and ended up suing New York publishing company HarperCollins over the book, claiming defamation. He was then awarded 1.8 million dollars from Chris Kyle’s estate. The aftermath of the lawsuit angered many people and soiled Ventura’s name even more. Ventura has said many times that he has no regrets over what he did and meant no harm or disrespect towards Kyle’s family and widow. Although many people across the country are now holding a grudge against the former Minnesota governor, he still won the battle of legal games.

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Understanding the New Federal Cyber Laws

Posted by Stephanie Simms.

Over the past decade or so, Congress has created multiple bills with regard to cybersecurity, but sadly made no progress whatsoever. In December 2014, lawmakers along with the President set aside disagreements over the topic of cybersecurity reform and passed the following into law: (1) National Cybersecurity Protection Act (NCPA); (2) Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (CEA); (3) Federal Information System Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA 2014); (4) Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act (CWWA); and (5) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act (BPAPRA).

These bills mentioned above generally address federal government departments with respect to cybersecurity. FISMA 2014, is a revision of the Federal Information Security Management Act 0f 2002 (FISMA) and was meant to “provide a framework for the federal government to assess and ensure its information security controls.” The CWWA and BPAPRA handle cybersecurity workforce issues at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The NCPA focuses only on promoting “information sharing” between the government and the private sector via DHS. The CEA officially is a bill that is governed-focused, but of all the bills passed in December, “it is the one that may have the biggest chances of causing unintentional effects on private sector organizations.”

Stephanie is business administration with a minor in biology at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Koch Industries, Inc. Joins the “Ban the Box” Movement

Posted by Tommy Donofrio.

According to Forbes, Koch Industries, Inc. in Wichita, Kansas is one of the largest private companies in the United States. It employs in excess of 60,000 workers largely in manufacturing. As such, the company’s decision to remove the criminal history question from their job application is newsworthy. Their objective is to “give ex-felons and others with criminal records a better shot at employment.” Koch thereby joins the “ban the box” movement which wants employers to wait until prospective applicants have been interviewed or have been given job offers before inquiring about their criminal background. With a company as large as Koch embracing such a policy, it suggests that this idea may gain momentum.

Mark Holden, Koch’s general counsel and senior vice president, asks, “Do we want to be judged for the rest of our life for something that happened on our worst day?” Certainly not, but research by the National Employment Law Project estimates that somewhere close to 70 million Americans have a criminal offense that will show up on a routine employment background check. Armed with this information, these job seekers are consistently being locked out of the market. Delaying the criminal question until applicants have been evaluated based on their qualifications will give these individuals a chance at securing a position. As Koch Industries, Inc. sees it, “ban the box” is a fair-chance hiring policy that should be adopted to aid the criminal justice system. Currently, federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit automatically banning the hiring of an individual with a criminal record. Disclosing criminal information later in the interview process fosters the application of the federal laws.

To date, 6 states, Washington D.C. and 11 cities have adopted these fair-chance hiring policies.

Tommy is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.