Posted by Taylor Gonzales.

A major issue in the United States is the suffering economy. There are not many jobs to apply for and even those available do not pay enough to support oneself or their family. To counteract this issue, states have opted to give a higher minimum wage. In Seattle, they have chosen to raise it to $11 per hour this year; they are allowing small businesses to adjust to the set price of $15 per hour over six years and larger businesses get two years to rise up to that amount. Such a change may be good in terms of income for employees, yet it offsets the business and their current budget.

A pizza shop in Seattle has to close down because it is considered a large business and is unable to make the adjustment of the high wage hike within two years. Ritu Burnham, the owner of the shop, stated, “I’ve let one person go since April 1[;] I’ve cut hours since April 1[;] I’ve taken them myself because I don’t pay myself,” she says. “I’ve also raised my prices a little bit[;] there’s no other way to do it” (Patel, 2015).

Legislation that enforces minimum wage seems to be aimed to protect people, except business profits should be taken into account as well. One idea is each business have a set wage that is efficient for them to stay open and large enough to support their employees. That wage would be enforced through a contract, and if the potential employee comes to an agreement with their wage proposal, then they will sign and be hired.

Sometimes the government needs to allow businesses to take care of themselves, especially in hopes of bettering the economy.

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

Posted by Sylvia Bis.

Workers who quit their job voluntarily can still collect unemployment benefits if they did so with good cause. Each state interprets criteria for good cause differently. However, all states consider harassment, discrimination, and unsafe work conditions to be adequate reasons to receive unemployment benefits after quitting.

In this case, Ann Dooley fought to overturn her denial of unemployment benefits. Dooley worked as a securities class-action lawyer at Lite DePalma. Dooley asked her partner, Katrina Carroll, for assistance on filings with approaching deadlines. Katrina Carroll, who was on the last days of maternity leave, agreed to help. Dooley received approval for the assistance from her supervisor, Allyn Lite.

However, the firm’s managing member, Joseph DePalma became irritated that Dooley was receiving help from Carroll. “He entered appellant’s office and berated appellant for reaching out to an attorney on maternity leave.” Afterwards, Dooley visited DePalma’s office to speak to him, but he had not yet calmed down and asked her to leave.

Dooley was very distressed and believed she could no longer work with DePalma. When she consulted Allyn Lite about her possible resignation, he advised her to take more time to consider the decision. However, that night Dooley notified Carroll that she would be resigning. The next day she confirmed it with Allyn Lite.

Initially, Dooley was accepted to collect unemployment benefits. The firm later appealed her eligibility and she was disqualified for benefits by the Appeal Tribunal. Dooley then appealed and the case was taken to the Appellate Division.

Judges Jonathan Harris and John Kennedy upheld the denial of benefits stating the cause would have to be “so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave employment,” and that “on-the-job reprimands administered to claimant by her supervisor, while public and arguably improper and humiliating, are not so burdensome as to justify a claimant’s departure from the job.”

Dooley then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which declined to review the case.

Sylvia is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Gabrielle Francois.

I chose a business law article from the Wall Street Journal to review. The title of the article is Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death. The article explains the following; a brief explanation of the young man named Freddie Gray’s death, charges toward the police officers behind the death and the attorney’s defense against the charges.

Freddie Gray was a young twenty-five year old African-American male who was killed by six police officers in Baltimore, Maryland. Freddie experienced fatal spinal cord injuries while under custody. The six officers responsible are: Officers William Porter (25 years old), Lt. Brian Rice (41 years old), and Sgt. Alicia White (30 years old), Edward Nero (29 years old), Garrett Miller (26 years old), and Mr. Goodson (45 years old).

Officers William Porter, Lt. Brian Rice and Sgt. Alicia White were charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Edward Nero and Garrett Miller were charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Then lastly Mr. Goodson was charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and other charges.

After the charges were set into place Mike Davey, who is Lt. Rice’s attorney, spoke for all six officers. Mike Davey stated, “I have never seen such a hurried rush to deliver criminal charges,” said Mr. Davey, who appeared with Gene Ryan, president of the Baltimore police union. “We believe these officers will be vindicated as they have done nothing wrong.” (wallstreetjournal.com).

After resolving this situation so quickly, a few people have some concerns about this decision, while others (mainly African-American communities) praise this decision. Now, it is shocking for many to believe that the police are actually being punished for a crime unlike (what many believe) the rest in other states relating to African-American murders.

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

Posted by Nadia Haddad.

Throughout the article, “Intellectual Property,” the author Darren Dahl talks about four different common fallacies that small business is unaware. The two most precious resources for any small business owner are time and money. Small business owners believe that it is not worth the time or effort to secure intellectual property rights. A patent can cost up to $25,000 to secure, in comparison to trademarks and Web addresses, which are cheap and can be obtained with the help of a lawyer.

In one case, Daniel Lubetzky, chief executive of New York City, Kind Snacks, heard that one of his competitors had copied the packaging, look, and feel of his bars. Lubetzky had secured components for his property like trademarks, trade dress, and Web addresses after founding his company. Mr. Lubetzky sent a competitor that was stealing his IP a cease-and-desist letter in order to stop the offender.

The above example stresses the erroneous belief that “once I get a trademark, my brand is safe.” In another case, Tracey Deschaine, who runs a restaurant called Dixie Picnic in Ocean City, N.J., secured trademarks, logo and name of her signature item, cupcakes. Even though she had trademarks for her business, someone else was monitoring the activity on the United States Patents and Trademark Office’s website and her spotted her application. They secured the Web address, or URL, before she could. This shows that, just because you have a trademark, it does not mean you are completely protected.

The third topic mentioned was about how “having a patent gives me the right to produce something.” What a patent does is gives you the right to prevent someone else from producing what your patent covers. Mr. Kocher of Cryptography Research says, “having a strong IP position helps ensure that other pay you for your innovation like they would on a toll on a road.” (Dahl).

Another fallacy mentioned is “If I have a patent or trademark in the United States, I don’t need to worry about the rest of the world.” In some countries, like Japan, it is expensive to acquire patents. The author suggested when deciding what your international IP strategy should be, consult a lawyer, and conduct some cost-benefit analysis to see if expanding your IP rights makes proper sense.

The last fallacy the article states “people who collect patents but don’t actually make anything are ‘patent trolls.’” In many cases, companies invent something, obtain a patent, and license it out for manufacturing by another. An example described was how a patent for wireless e-mail delivery held by NTP, a small holding company, something that R.I.M eventually would pay millions of dollars to license from them. The problem with this was NTP was trying to enforce its patent when it did notmake any products itself from the beginning.

Nadia is a business administration major with a minor in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Basbibi Kakar.

According to American and European officials, United States and Iran’s are closing in on a historic agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program. But the parties are facing problems, including when United Nations sanctions would be lifted and how inspections would be conducted.

President Obama is strongly against an agreement with Iran without curbing nuclear weapons in such a dangerous region. He also wants to reassure the world that all options would be available if Iran ultimately cheated. In an interview with New York Times, Obama said that America has Israel’s back, and he also said that he can accept a vote in Congress as long as it did not block his ability to carry out the agreement. The President said that he would make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. America also will send a clear message to Iranians that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there.

Under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress has power to provide for the common defense and general welfare; Congress also has the power to declare war. Congress can provide for organizing, and arming the United States. The Congress can also decide to ratify the agreement with Iran thereby restricting them or stop the process of creating the Nuclear weapon. America can go to war with Iran, since Congress has the power to organize and arm soldiers.

Obama gave new details about how international inspectors would inspect Iran’s covert nuclear sites and about how they would lift the sanctions. Obama hopes that security will be transformed in Middle East, however, the Middle East was never secure. America’s main focus is to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

But Iran never stopped working on their nuclear weapon. Since Iran has promised before that they would stop working toward a nuclear weapon, they have broken contract law. Contract law could be enforced and their rights to continue working the plant could be taken away. The alternative is Congress could exercise their authority under Article I to resolve the problem.

Basbibi is an economics and international trade and development major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kate Robinson.

Tyco International, Limited, is a corporation that provides over three million customers globally with fire protection and security products and services. It is currently the world’s largest pure-play fire and security company. Tyco is incorporated in Switzerland and its operational headquarters are located in Princeton, New Jersey.

In 2002, Tyco’s former CEO, Dennis Kozlowski and CFO, Mark Swartz, were charged for stealing $150 million and inflating the company income by $500 million. The two of them were siphoning money through unapproved loans and fraudulent stock sales. They would then smuggle the money out of the company disguised as executive bonuses and benefits.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Manhattan District Attorney investigated the scheme and uncovered questionable accounting practices, such as large loans made out to Mr. Kozlowski, which were later forgiven. After discovering these violations, Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz were sentenced to 8 to 25 years in prison and a lawsuit was filed forcing Tyco to pay back $2.92 billion to their investors.

Kate is a sports, events and tourism marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Marlon Javier Tatis.

As roughly a million Apple customers impatiently wait for their watches to arrive, they now have an answer as to what’s the holdup. Apple claims to have found a defect in the “taptic engine of the watch, which mimics the sensation of being tapped on the wrist, the newspaper said Wednesday.” With record orders already in the smart watch category, Apple has a lot of work to do to keep up supply. They are jumping into a different market aside from cellphones, which they try to dominate.

Ever since the watch was announced last year, millions of customers have been anxiously waiting for the release date to order the device. Hundreds of thousands of people lined up outside Apple stores across the nation waiting to order their watch and be amongst the first to own the next piece of technological innovation.

With Samsung, LG, Motorola and plenty of other top companies already in the smart watch business, Apple has a lot of catching up. They are entering the market a little late, and having delivery of so many watches delayed isn’t the best way to enter a new market.

Marlon is a business administration student with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jenifer Canas-Benavides.

What’s worse than saying something racist? Sending something racially inappropriate with not only your personal phone, but also the business work phone. President of AT&T Aaron Slater was sued for sending a racist photo to a co-worker. The co-worker, Knoyme King, is of African descent. The photo was of an African child dancing with a caption that included an offensive term. How was the photo discovered? An assistant was transferring data to a new phone and discovered the images during the transfer.

The company did not take action when they first heard about the incident, which is why the lawsuit will continue to take place. So exactly how much is this lawsuit going for? It is a $100 million discrimination lawsuit, which names Slater, the company, and other members as the defendants. According to King, she was passed over promotions and raises because of her race. She said she was mistreated and attempts were made to get her to leave the company. She is still employed there after 30 years. Not only is Aaron Slate the problem, but so is the company because the failed to report it right away.

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

Posted by Leonardo Terzulli.

McDonald’s has recently been involved in a case of a customer, Lynn Gipson, having hot water spill on her at a McDonald’s drive-through. The incident happened in 2012 when a cup’s lid popped off, “spilling the scalding water and causing second-degree burns on Ms. Gipson’s thigh and stomach,” a quote from the court documents. This incident is similar to the 1994 incident when Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s in the case Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants in which a top to a coffee lid came off in between Liebeck’s legs causing severe burn injuries with resulted in skin grafting. The turnout for this case was Liebeck was awarded $2.86 million. Gipson is alleging that McDonald’s drive-through employees delivered tea and other hot liquid substances in a negligent matter.

Unlike the case the in 1994, McDonald’s is most likely opting to not take the case to court and settle. The turnout for the 1994 case ended in the jury calling for McDonald’s to pay punitive damages. Knowing that they have faced a few court cases already this year, and that they will probably lose this case again, they feel the best choice for them is to just settle with Gipson’s terms. Although the case is still not fully resolved, it is safe to say that McDonald’s is going to lose. Similar to the 1994 case, this is a case that might seem a little obscure but, Lynn Gipson exerted all of her options, taking into account all actions by both parties, and taking the educated step to ensure she was given justice.

 Leonardo is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Ryan Neligan.

Earlier in the month, the state of New York banned the use of Fanduel and Draftkings, both websites in which people use to bet on daily fantasy sports. These websites are run daily in which people place down money and compete against each other in order to see who the best judge of sports is, and the winner acquires a large sum of money from those people who took place in the game. Games like this take place all over the world through these websites and have instantly gained a great amount of popularity.

The attention it is getting from the population has caused some heads to turn, such as the state government of New York. It has seen these websites as illegal gambling taking place within the state, and New York’s attorney general is set on shutting down this business. FanDuel and DraftKings are not going down without a fight though, as “the two biggest daily fantasy sports sites are taking on Eric Schneiderman in court, accusing him in lawsuits of bullying and abusing his powers in ordering that they stop operations in New York and are seeking a judge’s order to let them keep operating” (BloombergBusiness). To lose the participation of New York would be a huge blow for these two businesses, because New York accounts for “more than $1 billion each and have drawn investors across the sports, media and venture-capital industries. The state accounts for 5 percent of FanDuel’s customers and more than 7 percent for DraftKings, according to the companies’ filings” (BloombergBusienss).

Fanduel and DraftKings are taking action and are filing suit against this banning, for they do not see their business as an illegal online gambling site. They see it as a game of skill and knowledge in sports. Fanduel stated in its complaint about the case that “Such a shutdown would deprive hundreds of thousands of subscribing New Yorkers of the opportunity to pit their skills against the skills of others in selecting a ‘fantasy’ team of athletes from different sports teams and competing in contests offering prizes to the players whose fantasy teams perform best” (BloombergBusiness).

The case can be made for both sides of the argument. These websites are definitely a test of skill in the area of sports just like when people play regular Fantasy games, but it can also be seen as a website used for gambling and requiring money online, which is illegal in the state of New York. If these website continuing operating, the attorney general will take action and put chargers against these companies. The people of New York will be watching this case closely to see what the final outcome is, but for now daily fantasy sports has been banned from the state.

Ryan Neligan is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.