Posted by Katelyn Scott.
Equal pay has been an ongoing issue with women in business in society today. Equal weekly earnings for full time workers did not improve from 2016- 2017 in the United States (Hegewisch). For some reason women can do the same job as men, yet their pay is not always the same. A female today could have the same qualifications as a male and still get paid less. Recently a gender equal issue was uncovered at the University of Denver. It seems that it has been a topic brought up before at the University, but the University turned a blind eye to fixing the reoccurring issue. At the University of Denver, seven law professors realized they were doing the same work as their male colleagues, but were getting paid almost $20,000 less than the male professors (Flaherty). When will women get justice in the workforce?
Furthermore, Lucy Marsh a longtime professor apart of the law school at the University started noting the pay gap. Stated by Colleen Flaherty, “Marsh told the EEOC in 2013 that she was paid less than all of her full-time, male colleagues — even those who were hired long after her” (Flaherty). This means it took 5 years to settle this case. The EEOC sued Denver for violating the Equal Pay Act and Federal non-discrimination laws. The EEOC also found evidence of pay gaps dating back to the 1970s and were even informed about these issues (Flaherty). Obviously the University did not fix the on-going issue. This lawsuit would not occur if the University fixed the pay gap when informed years ago, but unfortunately these seven professors had to face unfair compensation. Flaherty states “the university employed nine female full time professors whose average annual salary was about $140,000, compared to about $159,700 for male full professors” (Flaherty). The gap between a female and male professor with the same role is approximately $19,700. That’s not a small pay gap. It is unfortunate these woman had to fight for equal pay and were not getting the compensation or justice deserved with their time spent at University of Denver.
In addition, the University of Denver had to pay $2.6 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit involving the University’s Sturm College of Law (Rose). The University is also going to make significant changes to its law faculty compensation policies. This is great news considering the women finally get the justice they deserve. As a woman, I hope in the future gender discrimination is no longer existent. There are laws that grant gender equal compensation, but they should be taken more seriously and be closely watched in order to create a truly equal environment. Each of the women involved worked just as hard as the others there, where they were competing against men or other women. Some measures to improve the quality of jobs held by women are to tackle occupational segregation, enforce equal pay, and come up with more opportunities in the work place for women (Hegewisch). Hopefully one day gender equal compensation will one day be consistent.
Works Cited:
Flaherty, Colleen. “U. Of Denver Settles with EEOC, Agreeing to Pay $2.66 Million to Seven Female Law Professors Who Alleged Gender-Based Pay Bias.” Esports Quickly Expanding in Colleges, Inside Higher Ed, 18 May 2018,
www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/18/u-denver-settles-eeoc-agreeing-pay-266-million-seven-female-law-professors-who.
Hegewisch, Ariane, et al. “The Gender Wage Gap: 2017 Earnings Differences by Race and Ethnicity.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 7 Mar. 2018,
Rose , Johnathan. “DU Settles Unequal Pay Lawsuit, Will Pay $2.66 Million to 7 Female Professors.” Bizjournals.com, The Business Journals, 17 May 2018,
Posted by Justin Cunha.
The federal government’s rollback of many different rules has been a highly discussed topic throughout media, however one of the topics that is truly standing out currently is net neutrality. Net neutrality is a principle in which internet services have to treat all data equally and not charge consumers for any specific data. This was put in place by the Obama administration but was removed last year. The event created a lot of outrage as “more than 20 states” have challenged this decision in court (Kang). On Friday August 31, 2018, California lawmakers passed a bill that guaranteed full and equal access to the internet and is the fourth state to create a new net neutrality law.
The state put the bill in place in order to block internet services from slowing down, blocking, or charging for specific services. The bill not only reinstates net neutrality, but it is also even stricter than the one put in by the Obama Administration. The bill would prohibit promotions of free streaming for apps, something that telecommunication companies are pushing to endorse. Prohibiting the promotions would put businesses on a more even playing field, as there are many business who simply do not have the resources to put out these promotions. The change would also ensure that streaming websites all put out the same speed and quality without charging an extra price. These changes are all in an attempt to restrict the amount of power these services have over consumers and the industry. This would be California’s second major internet law in the last year, recently creating a privacy law that allowed users to ask companies such as social media platforms what data they are collecting on them. California is very influential to the rest of the world, with New York already considering a bill similar to this one. One example of the influence the state has was its auto emission laws which inspired many other states to follow in their direction, and in turn giving telecommunication companies worry that something similar will follow.
Though telecommunication companies are attempting to challenge this decision. The companies feel that having these strict rules put on them would hinder their ability to grow and develop. For example, the strict rules will hinder these companies from trying out different business models and thus hurts innovation. Such is the example with the promotion of free streaming for apps, as this was one major experimentation that these businesses wanted to try out. President of US Telecom even argues that, “The internet must be governed by a single, uniform and consistent national policy framework, not state-by-state piecemeal approaches” (Kang). This quote emphasizing that these telecommunication companies want to flow the singular federal law and that these states are simply complicating their business. The companies even went out to promise that they would not slow down or block any websites, a major concern that many consumers had. Telecommunication companies, just like California, do have a lot of influence and power that could possible stop this bill from being implanted. In 2017 they blocked a state broadband privacy bill and are looking to do the same with this bill.
Governor Brown has until the end of September to make his final decision on the matter, and sign his name on the bill. The bill is heavily consumer friendly attempting to give everyone equal access to the internet. This does restrict some freedom of these telecommunication companies, however some restrictions need to be put in place. Power can corrupt and promises can be broken, thus giving these companies too much power can be a scary prospect. So even though there are some flaws with this bill, since it is one of the strictest net neutrality bills, I do believe that California is making the right decision.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/technology/california-net-neutrality-bill.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
Justin is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.
In class, we discuss trademark and trade dress. Ever open a can of Play-Doh and smell that distinct scent? Well, now Hasbro has trademarked that scent.
“‘The scent of Play-Doh compound has always been synonymous with childhood and fun,’” said Jonathan Berkowitz, a senior vice president of global marketing for the Play-Doh brand. “‘By officially trademarking the iconic scent, we are able to protect an invaluable point of connection between the brand and fans for years to come.’”
Posted by Samantha Staudt.
One in five Americans have reported that they have skipped medicine doses or failed to fill a prescription each year because of the cost of the medicine. This statistic is outrageous and states have to start doing something about it because the federal government will not. Certain states, like Nevada, have passed a new law that manufactures must disclose more information about why drug prices are rapidly increasing. In the past few year, prices in Nevada have increased as much as 325 percent, so this law will help regulate the prices of prescription drugs. Maryland provides another example of steps that must be taken in an order to regulate drug companies. The attorney general sued generic drug manufacturers whose prices rose more than fifty percent in a year. States are partly responsible for the funding of the Medicaid program, spending more than 20 million dollars a year on prescription drugs for public employees and prisoners.
Drug manufacturers have recently pushed opioids while denying and misunderstanding their addictiveness. This may be enough to cut the political power of the pharmaceutical industry. This statistic is not settling well with anyone and more than 100 states have filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies related to tobacco. This is in an effort to recover the costs of dealing with the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. Oklahoma’s attorney general, Nolan Clay, is making strides to fixing this rising issue by refusing to accept donations from drug companies.
Of course, pharmaceutical companies fight the big changes that would affect the company. The industry has been at the top of the lists for lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions at the same time managing to block reform proposals. During Nevada’s fight to lower drug prices, drug companies hired more than seventy lobbyist to descend on the bill. When state drug pricing bills pass, the drug industry challenges them in court. There have been several lawsuits filed, but none have succeeded yet. In order to prevent drug companies from overpricing prescription drugs, states must enforce regulation laws immediately.
Samantha is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Posted by Elizabeth Win.
Dollar bills might as well be worth as much as computer paper now. Cryptocurrency has been on the hot seat for the past few months because of its financially growing nature and easy accessibility. Now, as we are starting to see a slow downfall of people investing in Bitcoin; the I.R.S. is starting to detect serious problems with the millennial choice of currency. One of their main concerns is that this cryptocurrency fad has created another giant, financial bubble. If this bubble were to burst, this Bitcoin “bust” could wipe out millions of spectators leading to a huge loss in tax revenue.
A main contender to this potentially huge loss is Bitcoin’s anonymity. For those unaware, Bitcoin’s underlying technology, blockchain, thrives on anonymity. When a person makes a transaction, the transaction only links through an electronic address, making blockchain more attractive to buyers. Now, the I.R.S. has many problems with this missing identification of creative transactions. The anonymity fuels the underground economy, a significant factor in the source of lost tax revenue. Most of the underground economy is conducted through cash transitions; however, what the I.R.S. fears is that cash will slowly transition to cryptocurrencies because of its convenience. An anonymous buyer of bitcoin can easily pay fewer taxes by cheating the cryptocurrency system – also known as major tax evasion. The solution? The government might have to accept the hardships of directly taxing cryptocurrencies and raise tax rates in order to offset the loss of revenue. Understand that the public would highly disagree with this solution, they generated a smarter response: a switch from taxing income when it is received to taxing income when it is spent. Although this switch would require a “major overhaul of the tax code,” many economists support this decision and believe it is future of the economy.
On the contrary, the I.R.S. understands cryptocurrencies offer major reductions in the cost of financial transactions, making it very appealing to the lower classes. There would also be less reliance on banks, which would increase the power of the Federal Reserve to control money. However, the opportunities are too great for tax evasion and illegal operations that the I.R.S. cannot continue to allow it. Although the cryptocurrency economy is growing steadily, it will need to find a way to prevent tax evasion while preserving anonymity in order for it to survive and stay attractive to buyers. For cryptocurrencies to be successful, societies will have to learn to trust the government, a very difficult task for many to grasp. With the rise of extremely advanced technology, it is inevitable that the economy will eventually transition to the cryptocurrency movement. Figuring out how to smoothly transition from worthless green pieces of paper to slick, glassy pieces of technology worth thousands of dollars each, the challenge to adjust will be difficult by eventually necessary.
Elizabeth is a marketing and information technology major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Posted by Johnny A. Guerrero.
This article was published by the New York Times on 26 November 2017 and was written by Stacy Cowley. The article illuminates the tension between a high-ranking government civil service official, Ms. Leandra English, and the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump. To further understand this dilemma, one has to first comprehend what is “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and what do they do. For starters, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “was created six years ago to oversee a wide variety of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and student loans” (Cowley). With this in mind, one can say that the bureau was a regulator created in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that hit the New York Stock Market Exchange harshly. The “Regulatory Agency,” also referred to as (CFPB) was created by the Obama Administration to protect consumers from the tyrants of Wall Street. Thus, the agency is charged with overseeing financial products and services, as noted.
The tension raised because Ms. English, the deputy director of the bureau, was not willing to step down from her post because she believed that the President could not fire or replace her. So, she “filed a lawsuit late Sunday night on 26 November 2017 to block Mr. Trump’s choice of someone else from taking control of the agency on Monday morning, 27 November 2017” (Cowley). Ms. English was defending her cause because Congress gave the agency infrequent independency and autonomy to protect it from political interference. Thus, the bureau’s director “is one of the few federal officials the President cannot fire at will” (Cowley). However, the President nominates the agency’s director, who is subject to the approval and confirmation of the United States Senate. Ms. English was not nominated by former President Obama; she was appointed director by the agency itself because the director, Mr. Richard Cordray, brusquely stepped down on Friday 24 November 2017.
To add more fire to the already burning wood, Ms. English, a seasoned agency veteran who rose progressively through the agency’s ranks, was being replace by Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s budget director. Paradoxically, Trump wanted someone who saw the bureau as “sad, sick, a joke” (Cowley), and who openly supported legislation to eliminate it, as the agency’s new director. Ethically this is not right. Why appoint someone who speaks harshly about the agency to be its head? Mulvaney, a white-collar professional, many believed would undo what the bureau had achieved since its conception, which was to protect consumers from the abusive debt collectors and politics of Wall Street Financiers. This notion becomes eloquent with Senator Dick Durbin’s, a Democrat from Illinois, metaphor: “Wall Street hates it (the Agency) like the devil hates holy water” (Battle for Control of Consumer Agency Heads to Court, New York Times Article).
However, even though one may think that the President’s choice is ludicrous, he as the Head of the United States Government has the authority to appoint whoever he wants as the head of any Federal Government Agency. Ms. English did not have the grounds to veto the President’s decision; after all the actual director, Mr. Cordray, was the one who resigned. Therefore, it is the President’s duty to appoint a new head leader for the agency. The law regarding Presidential Nominees is clear, “not grey.” One must hope that Mr. Mulvaney does a good job protecting the American People from the Wall Street Tyrants, as he swore to do.
Johnny is in the dual B.A/M.B.A program at the College of Arts and Sciences (political science, minor in history) and the Stillman School of Business (management and finance), Seton Hall University, Classes of 2018 and 2019.
Source:
Posted by Ryan Simoneau.
The National Law Review recently posted an article on February 20, 2018 discussing the impact of the N.Y. Court of Appeals decision in Forman v. Henkin, a personal injury case. Forman, the Plaintiff, claimed she suffered spinal and brain injuries when she fell off the Defendants horse. Before the accident, the Plaintiff admitted to having an active Facebook account on which she posted pictures of her active lifestyle. After the accident, she claimed her life changed and she could no longer continue her active lifestyle and could barely type coherent messages. During discovery, the Defendant asked the court to compel the Plaintiff to provide full access to her Facebook account, regardless of whether it was public or private. At trial court level, the discovery (or electronic discovery) request was limited to photos before and after the accident and those relevant to her difficulty to type. When appealed, the appellate court limited the photographs provided in court. The court based its decision on another case, Tapp v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, in which it decided, “[t]o warrant discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s Facebook account- that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses and other claims.” The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. They determined that public versus private did not matter in regards to social media and reinstated the trial court’s ruling.
The Court of Appeals did not grant full access to the Plaintiff’s social media to protect her privacy, yet does not see a difference between public and private Facebook posts. Typically in personal injury cases, the Defendants will ask the court for full, unrestricted access to social media which is oftentimes unwarranted and called a metaphorical fishing expedition. The Court of Appeals held that the information compelled has to be “appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information.” What this means is that the request cannot be overly broad and burdensome, but relevant. This ruling mimics Federal procedure, specifically Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.
I am torn on the fairness of treating all Facebook posts the same regardless of whether it is private or public. In the 21st century, social media is becoming more and more popular. People utilize Facebook and Twitter as if they are personal diaries. Sometimes a physical diary could be relevant to a case, I’m sure, but it seems like an invasion of personal privacy. On the other end, social media utilizes the internet and the internet is not private so it should all be treated the same. I believe that in social media discovery (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), the court should use this appeal as a precedent and continue to limit requests to what is relevant but privacy settings should not matter.
Ryan is an undecided business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Link: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ny-court-appeals-no-difference-between-private-and-public-posts-discovery
Posted by Ashley Scales.
On February 22, 2018, Palantir was ordered to open their books to an investor who was seeking U.S. fraud probe. The judge ruled, “Data analytics and security company Palantir Technologies Inc. must open its books to early investor Marc Abramowitz.” Abramowitz wants to investigate possible fraud and misconduct at the esteemed private U.S. Company. He sued the firm after a 2015 falling out with the company’s chief executive officer, Alexander Karp. The lawsuit claims that Palantir prevented Abramowitz as well as many others from selling their stock in the privately owned company, while allowing sales by Karp and Chairman Peter Thiel.
Judge Joseph Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery said that Abramowitz showed “a proper purpose of investigating potential wrongdoing and a credible basis to justify further investigation.”
Through the KT4 Partners LLC fund he manages, Abramowitz invested an initial $100,000 in Palantir in 2003. According to Judge Slights’ 50-page opinion, Abramowitz’s investment is now estimated to be worth about $60 million.
Abramowitz and Karp had a close relationship until their falling out in 2015. Karp “verbally abused” Abramowitz and accused him of taking intellectual property from the company. Soon after their falling out, Abramowitz tried to sell his stock in Palantir, but he claimed that the company blocked the deal by making an offer of newly issued stock to the potential buyer. According to Slights, Abramowitz began pursuing information from Palantir while he considered suing the company for blocking the sale of his stock. In September 2016, in response to the potential claim against the company, Palantir sued Abramowitz for supposedly stealing trade secrets. In a comment, Palanti said that they plan to continue to pursue their case against Abramowitz.
Abramowitz brought his case to Delaware in March 2017. Palantir claimed that Abramowitz “should be denied information because he was likely to use it to build his lawsuit over the blocked sale”. Judge Slights ruled, “Abramowitz could investigate Palantir’s lack of annual meetings, corporate amendments that limited KT4’s rights and the company’s sales of stock”. However, Abramowitz would not be allowed to investigation Palantir’s value or Karp’s compensation.
Ashley is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Posted by Wasif Rahman.
Voters in Washington, who have taken on a role to guarantee paid sick leave to those working in the state recently, brought the Paid Sick Leave Act into play. The new law calls for employers to give workers an hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours that they have worked. It also restricts when employers would be able to demand medical documentation from employees. While the new law may seem ideal for those working in the State of Washington, it poses a major problem specifically for airlines and its passengers. The problem was first pointed out by Airlines for America earlier this month.
Requiring airlines to conform to the Paid Sick Leave Act for their flight crewmembers is problematic since they are already subject to employment laws of their home state. This new law would enable those same crewmembers to also take advantage of Washington’s employment laws, including the Paid Sick Leave Act, if they are to pass through the state during their shift. Airlines for America filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington in the U.S. district court and subsequently released a statement noting, “airlines cannot operate their nationwide systems properly if flight crews are subject to the employment laws of every state in which they are based, live, or pass through”[1]. The defendant, the Department of Labor and Industries for the state of Washington, made no remarks on Airlines of America’s statement. Airlines for America suggests that Washington’s law promotes, to some degree, more crewmembers calling in sick as the airlines would have certain limitations to when they would be able to demand medical documentation to verify whether a crewmember is actually sick or not. They claim that if it gets to a point where enough crewmembers are calling in sick, it would lead to flights either being cancelled or delayed since there wouldn’t be enough flight crewmembers to serve the passengers. This would lead to severe disruptions not only at Sea-Tac International Airport in Washington but across all airports through out the country. From the airlines standpoint, it would be detrimental to their business having to tell their customers & passengers that they cannot serve their needs. Airlines also claim this new law violates the constitution.
Ultimately, this law is unfavorable to airlines as their passengers would have to face an increase in cost & time for their travels. On top of that, passengers are not purchasing these tickets for the flights to be cancelled or delayed. This isn’t only a major inconvenience for airliners but also for passengers. As of now, a few of the other airlines that have sued Washington State include JetBlue, United and Southwest.
Source:
[1] http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/airlines-sue-over-new-washington-state-sick-leave-law
Wasif is a mathematical finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Posted by Brandon Bartkiewicz.
It has been almost two years since the Wells Fargo scandal broke into the headlines. It is not out of the ordinary to see a bank involved in shady activities; just look at the recession. However, in 2016, Wells Fargo committed a truly unforgivable crime, identity theft and fraud on a massive scale. To refresh, Wells Fargo had “… secretly opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by customers, and that ultimately harmed those who had entrusted their financial affairs with the bank”. The goal of this was to create an illusion of more “sales” (accounts being opened). They did this by transferring money between accounts without permission of the accountholder. These activities were highly encouraged by an incentive system in place that would reward employees for opening accounts. Everyone was in on this; bank managers pressured their employees, and the executive board of Wells Fargo knew this was going on and did not stop it. By August 2017, the investigation found that as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts existed in Wells Fargo’s records.
The news of this wide scale fraud fueled a settlement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Los Angeles legal officials, totaling $185 million in penalties. Along with this, Wells Fargo would give “… $80 million in refunds — $64 million in cash and $16 million in account adjustments — to more than 570,000 auto loan customers who were charged for auto insurance without their knowledge.” As it should be, the bank is now in financial trouble as it tries to cover all of the direct and indirect costs relating to the scandal. However, the Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve is not done disciplining the bank. Due to their “widespread customer abuses and compliance breakdowns,” the bank is now restricted from growing any more than its total asset size in 2017. Along with this, the bank will remove some of the senior ranking executives in the company. This is done to ensure that Wells Fargo will have sound business practices before it can grow again.
Personally, I believe that punishments handed down by the Federal Reserve were suitable for Wells Fargo. It provides a clear message to all banks that business malpractice is unacceptable and will be punished by harsh penalties. No bank should be able to get away with using client money and creating unauthorized accounts for personal gain. I wish the American legal system were stricter with companies so it would deviate them from doing illegal acts like this in the first place. What I did not like about this case was the fact that there are still plenty of people who have been long time officials of the company and are still employed by Wells Fargo. If you keep many of the same old pieces in place at a company, something like this is bound to happen again.
Brandon is a finance major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Source:
Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/02/fed-limits-wells-fargos-growth-citing-consumer-abuses/302973002/