Child Labor Laws Should Be Taken Seriously

Posted by Dongsheng Xu.

According to an article published on Fox News on September 15th: McDonald’s franchises in Idaho have been punished in 11 locations for violating the child labor law.

According to Labor department, the operator and owner of the franchisee: Darmody Enterprises L.T.D,violated the local labor law. According to the article: “Darmody allowed its employees, ages 14 and 15, to work shifts that lasted longer than three hours, or extended beyond 7 p.m. on school days. On non-school days, the franchisee allegedly allowed its workers who fit that age range to stay on the clock for more than eight hours. The alleged violations were made at locations in Meridian, Boise and Nampa.”

This incident reflects that some businessmen ignore the law for money, and the idea of ​​money first is a very serious problem. It is very inhumane for them to hire children under the age of 16 to work continuously for 3 hours for short-term benefits. Facing the allegations by the Ministry of Labor, Darmody Enterprises L.T.D wrote in an email statement that they will compulsorily conduct training for employees in order to comply with laws and regulations. These will not change the fine he faces.

I think that companies and operators in all walks of life should always abide by child labor law. Because the work intensity of all walks of life in society is different, sometimes child labor cannot bear the work pressure, and they are overloaded every day, putting child labor in a painful situation, which is physically and psychologically devastating. Child labor law are beneficial to protect the lives and health of minors; to protect the right to education of minors and to promote the implementation of education; to improve the quality of minors and to contribute to the prosperity of all walks of life in society. This typical business behavior that does not comply with the law should be severely punished by the law, and McDonald’s should also strictly audit franchisees, and should not ignore this review, so as not to damage the company’s reputation.

Dongsheng Xu is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/idaho-mcdonalds-child-labor-law-violations

Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

Posted by Nicholas Minikel.

The quote from Charles Colton can be easily applied here because Warren Lotas was almost exactly copying Nike shoes. The problem here is how truly similar the shoes are because it is so obvious that Warren Lotas is copying Nike because they put a Nike logo on their own shoe. Nike is a brand that is willing to engage in Lawsuits to defend the brand. This includes defending themselves and not giving and dealing with issues outside of court rooms as well as dealing with issues inside court rooms. This issue is a perfect example of when Nike is simply unwilling to let an issue go. Nike is willing to engage in lawsuits with some of the best athletes in the world including Kawhi Leonard and if they are willing to do this then no lawsuit is out of bounds for them. The issue of stealing the looks of shoes is extremely important because the quality of a Nike shoe compared to its competitors is almost nothing. However, what helps separate Nike from other companies is its ability to make fascinating shoes. If Nike were to allow competitors to steal the look of their shoes the business could lose a lot of money. This lawsuit is important for Nike because it needs to show its competitors that if they steal the looks of a Nike shoe they will be sued for a lot of money. “Nike is seeking three-times the damages incurred, profits from Lotas’ sales, and reimbursement of lawsuit and attorney fees” (Jones 1).


The result of the case is that Lotas can no longer gain brand recognition and profits off of the Nike imitations and must stop selling them immediately. As well “ $10K bond has been issued and Warren has 30 days to file in compliance of the court’s ruling”(Sensarma 1). The reason why the court did not rule for everything Nike wanted was because the court did not believe that the damage Lotas committed against Nike was as much as Nike was suing for. This case will probably have to go to court again as right before the case went to court Lotas made two more Nike imitations that were not involved in this case. They have profited again off Nike and Nike will probably have to show them a lesson again.


My opinion on the case is that the court did not strike down hard enough against Lotas. The punishment of essentially do not do this again is not hard enough. Lotas probably made a lot of money and they stole the looks of Nikes shoe even down to the logo on the shoe. They should at the absolute least ne required to pay back the profits they made off the shoe. Many people just bought the shoe from Lotas because it looed the same as Nike except it was cheaper from Lotas. As well clearly, they did not learn their lesson because they released more Nike imitation shoes. As well they should pay the lawyer fees for Nike since Nike was forced to defend their brand against Lotas. Lotas still would have walked away the winner in this situation because their brand was boosted by so many people the Nike imitations that they will likely shop at Lotas again.

Nicholas is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2023.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nike-suing-warren-lotas-over-164348765.html

Churches, Cuomo and Coronavirus

Posted by Elyse Bentz.

This article published by The New York Times discusses court cases that have made their way to the supreme court about the government lifting their Coronavirus restriction on attendance at religious services. Churches in California, Nevada, and New York all presented cases stating that the restrictions violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. The courts have ruled in both the Nevada and California case but not yet the New York case, the two cases presented lost in a ruling of 5-4 in the supreme court. This article was written after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn filed an emergency application asking the supreme court to lift restrictions set by Governor Andrew Cuomo.

One view of the court was presented by Chief Justice Roberts where he presents the argument that officials who are elected with protecting the public should not be questions. The article includes a quote that Chief Justice Roberts made on the topic “should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people” (Liptak). Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed the opposite view saying people’s fundamental rights are being violated: “Whenever fundamental rights are restricted, the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes,” Justice Alito said on Thursday, rejecting the view that “whenever there is an emergency, executive officials have unlimited, unreviewable discretion’” (Liptak).

The article continues to go into details about the New York case, starting in the appeals court lawyers for Governor Cuomo agreed that the diocese has been following social-distancing and hygiene measures. The diocese does not want anything other than being able to function at 25% capacity and continue to follow Coronavirus regulations. Judge Garaufis said that it was difficult to rule on this case and would leave it up to the governor. This was the ruling “In refusing to block the governor’s order while the diocese’s appeal went forward, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit drew on Chief Justice Roberts’s concurring opinion in the California case. Since the restrictions on churches were less severe than those on comparable secular gatherings like theaters, casinos and gyms, the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion, they did not run afoul of constitutional protections for religious freedom” (Liptak).

This case will be ruled on in the upcoming weeks and the outcome of New York’s case could be different than the Nevada and California cases because there has been a shift in the courts since Judge Amy Coney Barret has since been elected to the Supreme Court. The article concludes with remarks from Justice Alito talking about how the pandemic has affected our personal liberties “This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty,” he added. “It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right’” (Liptak) I think this article brings up a very valid point on how people feel their personal liberties are being taken away as a result of this pandemic. I think the pandemic is taking a toll on everyone in different ways and it’s easy to get frustrated with our elected officials when they take a lot of things away from us but I do believe that it’s for the better (hopefully). I understand why people can get frustrated, especially when it comes to places of worship being shut down or limited capacity. Our religions play a major role in our lives and it’s hard to not go to a place of worship and continue to practice religion. It makes me sad to know that most likely on Christmas my whole family want be able to go to church together but we know that it is the right decision to make to keep us all safe. Hopefully, in the next couple of months with a vaccine almost ready, we can start to get back to a normal lifestyle and we can appreciate the hard decisions our governors have made to try and protect us.

Elyse is a marketing and sports management major at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2023.

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/supreme-court-coronavirus-cuomo.html

Williams-Sonoma v. Amazon

By Dominick Pellegrini

In 2018, Williams-Sonoma filed a lawsuit against Amazon’s furniture business, Rivet. According to Fox News, Williams-Sonoma claims that Rivet used their designs in order to sell cheaper furniture. The case was handled in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, which ruled in a dismissal of the case due to a settlement reached by the parties involved.

According to Retail Dive, during the case Amazon claimed that that Williams-Sonoma misused the term “counterfeit.” If the courts ruled in favor of Amazon, this would cause Amazon to win and Williams-Sonoma would have difficulty bringing up any future cases against the company. Over the past few years, Amazon has faced multiple lawsuits based on knockoff items from competitors.

Many items sold on Amazon are from third-party vendors. There have been many lawsuits against Amazon that they are selling faulty products to customers. Amazon has also faced lawsuits about terrible working conditions by employees. This could raise the question if Amazon is running a moral business model. Amazon is quickly becoming a monopoly and if they take too much power of the market, there could be an expectation that Amazon will face more legal trouble.

Class of 2023

Dominick is a Sport Management major at Seton Hall University, School of Business with a Criminal Justice minor.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/amazon-williams-sonoma-reach-settlement-legal-fight-west-elm-ip

https://www.retaildive.com/news/amazon-and-williams-sonoma-settle-legal-battle-over-ip/588373/

Court upholds hog verdict; Smithfield announces settlement

Posted by Ron Richards

A recent article that was written by Gary D. Robertson states a federal appeals court upheld 2018 jury verdict that awarding money to neighbors of a North Carolina industrial hog that made unbearable to live in peace because of noise and smell. The judges’ ruled that the jurors’ multimillion-dollar verdict in the case against Smithfield, the largest port producer, was unfair.

The decision from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia stated that they have put an end to this case and a similar nuisance case filed by other North Carolina residents against Smithfield Corp. In a statement Smithfield Chief administrative officer Keira Lombardo stated that, “We have resolved these cases through settlement that will take into account the divided decision of the court.”

The jurors found Smithfield interfered with the life of the residents’ enjoyment of their property. Ten neighbors received a total of $750,000 in compensation, plus $50 million in damages designed to punish Smithfield. The district judge Earl Britt cut punitive damages to 2.5 million. The jurors alleged from all the evidence presented to the court that Smithfield refused to spend money on technology that could improve these problems.

I think Smithfield cooperation should pay whatever the residents asked for because for years they had to put up with the noise and smell from the waste of the hogs. For years, the 400 hundred residents complained to Smithfield of improvement the quality and safety of life for its neighbor, but they never tried to improve technology to help with the environment.

I think the residents deserved to be paid the entire punitive damages awarded to make Smithfield understand that they need to change the way they treat the environment and its neighbors with respect.

https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-courts-4b2f1db4c21e03653851e81b81996410#:~:text=RALEIGH%2C%20N.C.,said%20made%20living%20nearby%20unbearable.

Ron Richards is a Finance major Senior 2021 at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Bill Bans Imports of Slave-Produced Goods

The President signed into law a bill passed by Congress banning U.S. imports of “fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa, and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh.” The law closes a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law which allowed these products to be sold.

Due to high demand of certain products, the previous law allowed these goods to be sold in the U.S. regardless if they were produced by slave labor. Sen. Sherrod Brown has pressed U.S. Customs to make sure the law is enforced.  He said, “It’s embarrassing that for 85 years, the United States let products made with forced labor into this country, and closing this loophole gives the U.S. an important tool to fight global slavery.”

Administrative Rule May Not Be Protecting Farmers

Posted by Mike Elwell.

A recent article written by David Pitt discusses a law regarding the protection of animal farmers, was recently withdrawn by the US agency after being delayed six months by President Trump. The reason for this rule being instated was so that farmers would have an easier time suing companies that were unfair, this was called “The Farmer Fair Practice Rule”.  Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa farmer, claimed that the reason for the cancellation of the law was that “They’re just pandering to big corporations. They aren’t interested in the family farmer.” This was one of the many criticisms regarding the Trump administration.

Many other farmers or those in power in such agricultural based department’s claim that Trump administration is “opening the floodgates to frivolous and costly litigation”. While some other claim that the Obama administration ignored this up until the very end and the rule possibly couldn’t help farmers to the degree initially thought. However many farmers still believe that this rule could help and that Trump is allowing foreign interest to control the growth of American farmers. Many farmers are having troubles with Trump’s administration because they believed he more focused on the wealthy of America and not the farmers who provide produce domestically.

It seems that Trump is turning his attention away from domestic farms and allowing companies to take advantage of otherwise struggling farmers. Part of my family owns a cow farm in upstate New York and they often struggle with big companies because they either expect more out of the farm than is physically possible or they try to often make things cheaper since they are buying in large amounts. Big companies often try to take advantage of the little guy and without proper regulation can lead to the downfall of one of the backbones of America.

Michael is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Presidential Pardon – Article II

The district court judge dismissed the guilty verdict against Sheriff Joe Arpaio citing President Trump’s plenary power to pardon under Article II of the United States Constitution.

“Prosecutor John Keller said it was appropriate to dismiss the case against Arpaio.”

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.

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.