The High Court rendered an opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The bottom line is unless the employer can show it is unduly burdensome to accommodate a religious practice, it must accommodate the person even if it has a mandatory dress code or other neutrally-applied policy. The employer is required to do so if the person asks for the accommodation or even if the employer suspects the person may need one.

Abercrombie did not hire a Muslim woman because her headscarf violated their “Look Policy.” The policy, which is described as “East Coast collegiate or preppy style,” prohibits the wearing of “caps” (an undefined term in the policy) as too informal for their image. The woman applied for a job at one of the stores. The assistant manager of the store interviewed and conditionally approved her for the job. Yet, the headscarf she wore to the interview indicated to the manager that hiring her would be a violation of their “Look Policy.” Although the woman never asked for a religious accommodation, the assistant manager assumed that she would need one if hired and deferred to the district manager. The district manager thought the scarf “would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise,” and directed the assistant manager not to hire the woman.

The EEOC sued on the woman’s behalf claiming Abercrombie’s action violated Title VII and won a $20,000 judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment, ruling an “employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.”

Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “‘to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.’ §2000e–2(a)(1).” Religion “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate [] an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

There are two ways to bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: one is for a disparate- treatment (or intentional-discrimination), and the other, disparate-impact of otherwise facially neutral policies. The “intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.” Disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is plain: “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

The Court ruled: “An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”

Under the ruling, a prospective applicant is not always required, as the Tenth Circuit held, to request an accommodation from an employer. Employers that are aware or believe an accommodation is needed and are motivated to fire or not to hire someone based on that accommodation also violate the statute. As Justice Alito stated in his concurrence, however, if it is unduly burdensome to require the accommodation, then there is no violation.

But Justice Thomas in his dissent was concerned about a broad reading of the words “because of such religious practice” in that it could sweep up an employer’s policy that applies indiscriminately to everyone, yet happens to be at odds with an employee’s religious practice. He gives the following example:

Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim appli- cant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment ‘because of’ the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment ‘because of’ a practice that happens to be religious in nature.

Justice Thomas reasoned that under a broad reading employers with no discriminatory motive would be punished because they had no knowledge of every aspect of an employee’s religious practice. It would undermine the intent element of disparate treatment and make the employer strictly liable for its conduct. Citing precedent, Justice Thomas explained “discriminatory purpose” as “‘the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination” that “demands ‘more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’”

He recognized refusal to accommodate can be discriminatory where an employer does not make a policy exception for someone for religious purposes involving a store policy that is applied to everyone, when at the same time makes the same allowance for someone of another religion or some secular practice. Yet, he explained,”merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant ‘less favorably than others.’” Under the majority’s view “mere refusal to accommodate a religious practice under a neutral policy could constitute intentional discrimination,” unless the employer produces evidence that the accommodation is unduly burdensome and persuades the court that it is so.

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 United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

Posted by Shakil Rahman.

Americans pride themselves on the idea that their country is the land of the free, where people of different parts of the world could have the equal opportunity to live as they wish, pray freely, and be free to live without being persecuted for their beliefs. It is stated in the constitution and laws are created to make sure people’s rights are not infringed upon or people are discrimination for their beliefs. But there are times when the people seem to be discriminated against because of their beliefs and it spills into the national spotlight.

Abercrombie & Fitch are multimillion dollars clothing store and in one of their stores a Muslim woman named Samantha Elauf applied for a job but she was rejected. When inquired about why she was being rejected, the company replied that the company’s dress code is “classic East Coast collegiate style” and since she wore head scarf, a headwear named Hijab that Muslim women wear, which went against the dress code, she was not hired. Ms.Elauf filed a discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch and the case went to the Supreme Court after being going through trial court and appeals court. The defendant claimed that since the plaintiff did not specifically state that the head scarf was worn for religious reasons they did not discriminate the plaintiff. The Supreme Court justices voted 8-1 for the plaintiff stating that the company should have understood that the head scarf had a religious significance, since it is of common knowledge and therefore the plaintiff was being discriminated and that is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit against the company is based around the claim that the company rejected the applicant’s application for a job due to dress code violations knowing that it had religious significance. The reasoning given by the company was that the applicant did not specifically ask for religious accommodation, therefore there was no discrimination. While it is true that the applicant did not request religious accommodation, head scarves are commonly used for religious reasons in various religions and being ignorant of the fact is not valid argument. Therefore, when the company rejected Ms.Elauf’s application due to her wearing a head scarf, they were discriminating her based on her religious practices. Being ignorant of law is not sufficient excuse either, since the company is supposed to know the laws of the land it is conducting its business in.

In the modern world where globalization has brought the world, and the business world, laws are created to make sure that people are not discriminated for their personal life choices. But sometimes the laws are not interpreted in the same manner by people. For instance, for this lawsuit, the trial court granted the Plaintiff $20000 for the lawsuit, but the appeals court saw the same case and decided that there were no signs of discrimination and overturned the ruling, only for the ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Interpretation of the law is an important part of the business world that must be done in a prudent manner by the courts but also by companies and individuals in order to avoid situations where a wrongdoing does not occur due to ignorance.

Shakil is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

General Motors created millions of vehicles with defective ignition switches. This defect is linked to more than 100 deaths and 200 reported injuries. Many lawsuits have arisen from these defective switches which makes General Motors likely to face a large sum of punitive damages which, “could amount to millions, if not billions of dollars,” as stated by Judge Gerber. Punitive damages are those intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from similar wrongdoing. “GM had sought to block plaintiffs, including those suing for personal injury or wrongful death, from making punitive damages claims.” The recent defects ignited numerous other complaints of other GM cars recalled in 2014 that were “equipped with a faulty ignition switch that can slip out of the run position and disable safety features including air bags.” The effects of these defects have resulted in numerous injuries and lost lives.

Robert Hillard is representing nearly 1,500 plaintiffs suing GM for the injuries and deaths that are tied to the defective ignition switch. Hillard is confident that his clients are capable of being awarded the punitive damages they are seeking. GM has already spent $575 million to settle Hillard’s cases but there are still a large number of cases that remain unsettled. In September, GM agreed to pay nearly $900 million to settle a case similar to this. In addition to this payment, they were also forced to pay a $35 million fine for failing to report the defect themselves when they were first made aware of it. The company created a compensation fund of $625 million for victims.

GM attempted to restructure, and split into “New GM” and “Old GM.” Old GM kept all liabilities but agreed to be held responsible for “future product-liability cases involving other vehicles.” Judge Gerber wrote, “New GM may be held responsible, on claims for both compensatory and punitive damages, for its own knowledge and conduct” on the basis that workers were aware of the defective switch and related accident claims. However, it was made clear by Judge Gerber that punitive damages can only be sought against New GM if and only if it’s solely on the basis of the conduct or knowledge of New GM.

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

Posted by Gerald Wrona.

Interesting. That is one word to describe the NY Times report on the pre-trial proceedings of the Libyan Investment Authority’s (LIA) suit against Goldman Sachs (Anderson). Acting as broker-dealer to the sovereign wealth fund, Goldman established a relationship with the fund’s managers in 2007. A year later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was visiting Moammar Gadhafi in Libya’s capital to devise a “trade and investment agreement . . . which will allow the improvement of the climate for investment.” (Labbott). Shortly after that promising convention between the two political heads, Goldman and the Authority finalized the agreement and the bank sold derivative products totaling $1 billion to the LIA. Then the housing market “opened its mouth” and out came the demon of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Understandably, the LIA felt exploited. They bit the bullet. Their lawyers came to the London High Court armed with notions that those managing the sovereign wealth fund were ineffectual in understanding the investments presented to them by Goldman. To add insult to insult, they further asserted that the fund administrators were altered in their judgment by Goldman representatives’ leadership role in incidents allegedly involving the recreational consumption of alcohol and visits paid to what may have been brothels, or some other manufacturer of night entertainment, though a witness statement does not specify. Considering that it would never have been in Goldman’s interest to spend more time carousing then working on the deal with the authority, it is highly unlikely that the time spent in leisure outweighed the hours dedicated to the investigation of the necessary facts of the deal.

Though it is worth noting that Goldman has already been ousted for luring investors into crummy deals and then betting against those deals to increase revenue. This is how Goldman actually made money off the subprime mortgage crisis (Cohan).

Will evidence be disclosed that suggests Goldman dealt with the LIA in a similar way? It’s impossible to know. I believe the judge will find that the heart of the matter is whether Goldman conducted due diligence in their dealing with the LIA. For that reason, Robert Miles, one of the attorney’s representing Goldman, would do well to look to the Securities Act of 1933 for support. It states: “If a Broker Dealer conducts reasonable due diligence on a security and passes the information on to the buyer before a transaction, the Broker cannot be held liable for non-disclosure of information that was not found during the investigation.”  Securities Act of 1933, SEC §§ 38-1-28 (SEC 1933).

The trial is expected to start next year.

Gerald is a Business Administration and MIT major at Montclair State University, class of 2017.

Posted by Zachary Lucanie.

Historically, presidential elections have brought Americans to their feet as they stand behind their candidate to hold the highest position in American politics. Given that the president is elected once every four years it is important to many Americans that the office is held by the candidate that will solve the issues most prevalent to them. One of the great privileges that an American has is the Constitutional right to vote, with the Fifteenth Amendment ensuring that every vote counts no matter what ones race or skin color. With that, there are still many Americans that pay no mind to elections and abstain from voting. The circumstances have changed, however, in the current presidential election between Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Many feel that this election has broader implications for the country and that the electing of the wrong candidate could leave the country in turmoil. Along with protesting and campaigning on behalf of their candidate, Americans feel the best way to stop the candidate that they disagree with is to get out and vote. This has brought many voters, some who have never voted before, out to the polling booths which was seen in the primaries. Now, as we close in on Election Day and as voters begin preparing to elect their candidate, many individuals are beginning to question the legitimacy of the voting process. Although this is occurring in states all over the country, there are disputes occurring in swing states especially due in part to the potential weight that their vote could hold. Whether the claims hold legitimacy is not clear cut and many have turned to the law to rectify the issues they see in the voting process.

One state that is experiencing legal trouble is Texas, where voting-rights advocates have pointed out to state officials that “several counties opened the state’s early voting period October 24^th with incorrect signs indicating that voters must show photo identification to cast a ballot” (Kendall). This was a problem to many given that earlier in August a court had determined that there would be exceptions made for people that had sufficient reasoning for not obtaining a form of government issued identification. The signs that were mistaken put out at these polling sites meant that there would be some residents who wouldn’t be able to cast their ballot. Many polling sites claimed this to be an oversight and that the placement of the signs were not intentional. With that said it is still unlawful and since shedding light on the issue the signs have been fixed.

Another state that has seen questions of voting rights was Ohio. State Democrats and a pair of homeless advocacy groups appealed to the Supreme Court in an effort to stop state requirements which they believe could lead to absentee and provisional ballots being rejected if voters make mistakes on the forms. If this problem goes unaddressed it is predicted that thousands of Ohio ballots will be disallowed. “Justice Elena Kagan has asked the state to submit a legal response by Monday” (Kendall). Secretary of State Jon Husted disagreed with the Democrats initiative saying that allowing these ballots to count would be “injecting chaos” (Husted) into the election. Husted stated that “Election officials need a way to confirm that a person is a qualified, eligible voter before counting a ballot”.

“Arizona Democrats are awaiting an appeals-court ruling on their challenge to a GOP state law that makes it a crime for get-out-the-vote operatives to collect and deliver absentee ballots filled out by voters” (Kendall). Democrats fear that if residents are unable to go out and vote that their votes will not be counted. They are also concerned that a large burden will be placed on neighbors, activists and campaigners who will have to go out and collect ballots for those that cannot get out and vote. A trial judge ruled in favor of the state, the reason being that Arizona has been known to have cases of legitimate voter fraud and ballot tampering.

Being a swing state, Pennsylvania is placed under the microscope when it comes to voting and voter legitimacy. Most recently “A Pennsylvania federal judge will consider a GOP challenge to state rules that say residents are eligible to monitor elections only in the counties in which they reside” (Kendall). Due to the power that Pennsylvania has in the deciding of an election, many Republicans feel that it would be wise to place poll watchers in heavily Democratic urban areas to make sure that elections are conducted fairly. Some people, including Democratic Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pedro Cortes feels that the Republicans could “compromise the fundamental rights of voters actually trying to cast peaceful votes.”

As the election begins to narrow down there is widespread implications of voter fraud and voter rights violations across the country. It is up to courts and lawmakers to ensure that every single American has the right to vote for who they want, it is a fundamental right that this country was founded on.

Zachary is a finance and economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Lilli Wofsy.

On October 11, 2016, Samsung reported that they would completely recall the Galaxy Note 7 and stop trying to fix the product overall. After there were many reports of the smartphone exploding or causing severe burns, Samsung attempted to fix the problem. With the hope of still profiting from the product, Samsung “decided to continue shipping new Galaxy Note 7s containing batteries from a different supplier” (Chen and Sang-Hun). Yet, using ATL battery instead of the original SDI battery did not help solve the issue of overheating. Many former employees of Samsung expressed they felt that the “militaristic” environment did not allow for there to be any communication from workers and the corporate bosses who just wanted to release the device.

While there have been “92 reports of Note 7 batteries overheating in the United States,” this is not the only Samsung product that has been flawed (Chen and Sang-Hun). There has been a recall in Australia for 144,000 washer machines that were likely to start fires in homes. Samsung has also had to recall “184,000 microwave ovens in the United States and 210,000 refrigerators in South Korea” (Chen and Sang-Hun). Though they have had many small recalls other than these large ones, customers have positively described their quickness in replacing or refunding their clients for the inconvenience.

Samsung has faced a hard hit due to the recent issues they have had with their products. On October 12^th, Samsung noted they “absorb[ed] $2 billion in losses” (Chen and Sang-Hun). They reportedly earned 33.3 percent less that what they had projected to earn from the Galaxy Note 7. Between October 11^th and 12^th, the company’s shares went down 8.65 percent. With Samsung fighting with Apple to keep up with their never-ending battle, Samsung might be releasing products too quickly in hopes of beating their opponent. Yet Apple has not faced as many large recalls when compared to Samsung, rather they have only recalled one of their Nano products and one type of Beats. Maybe if Samsung’s workers have more openness about possible problems with products or testing out products more prior to releasing them, they can revive their company and make back up what they have lost from their present predicament.

Lilli is an English and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Sources:

Posted by Kirsten T. Rewekant.

A somewhat recent case, Ellis Vs. Cartoon Network, Inc. shows how old statutes can be in conflict with the new and always updating technology. Ellis uses the Cartoon Network app on his android device to watch popular television shows that Cartoon Network airs. This is a free service, which you could choose to upgrade to pay for exclusive content that the free app does not allow others to see. When signing up for this extended service, you would create a profile with personal information that Cartoon Network would be available to see. Ellis had decided the free version was good enough for him, and therefore, did not give Cartoon Network permission to obtain any personal information.

Cartoon Network uses a service called Bango, which allows them to assign an ID number to everyone who views their content, free service or extended. This service does not know exactly who you are with any personal information, but is essentially learning who you are by linking all the shows you watch to your ID number, and therefore, learning what you like to watch. Through the service, the company is getting an understanding of who you are. Ellis tried to argue this to the court.

The court heard arguments as to whom is considered a consumer or producer. Cartoon Network argued Ellis is not considered a consumer under the definition of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) because he does not provide any “personal identifiable information.” But Ellis argued, this ID number does show a side of his personality and gives the company his personal information. Finally, the court needed to decide whether Ellis can be considered a subscriber to Cartoon Network, which makes him a consumer under the VPPA. To be a consumer under the VPPA, you do not have to pay for a service, log in, or create a profile.

Overall, the court ruled Ellis as not a subscriber under the VPPA for not signing up for an account, providing no personal information, having no profile, not paying for the service, and he is not considered to have a committed relationship with Cartoon Network to obtain the exclusive content they offer.

Some issues with this ruling includes the fact that if you were to visit Cartoon Network on your web browser, you would not be assigned an ID number, as the app does. Another issue with this case is the very little distinction between downloading the app and being a subscriber to Cartoon Network and how these two do not show a difference in commitment. After this case, there are still questions regarding the VPPA regarding privacy, and therefore, there may need to be some revising.

Kirsten is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Gabriella Campen.

Unfortunately, in this day and age being well-known in Wall Street circles also happens to be synonymous with being well known by the SEC. The SEC has recently charged hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman, 73, of insider trading by using his easy access to executives to gather information, which he used to buy securities from a company called Atlas Pipeline Partners.  Cooperman’s information led him to buy more securities in the firm, right before the stock’s value soared over 30% due to the company’s $682 million dollar sale of a natural gas processing facility.

After the suspicious buy, the SEC filed a federal lawsuit in Philadelphia, and accused Cooperman of abusing his access to executive information, “By doing so, he allegedly undermined the public confidence in the securities markets and took advantage of other investors who did not have this information,” said SEC Enforcement director Andrew Ceresney.  Along with barring Cooperman from any positions as a director or officer in the future, the SEC is seeking restitution of profits as well as money penalties from Cooperman and his firm, Omega Advisors.

However, Cooperman’s attorneys, Ted Wells and Dan Kramer have released a statement claiming that these allegations are “entirely baseless” and that “Mr. Cooperman acted appropriately at all times and did nothing wrong. We intend to vigorously defend against the charges and will not allow the SEC to tarnish the legacy Mr. Cooperman has built over the course of a legendary career spanning five decades.”  Cooperman is firing back and defending his career and reputation, to which the SEC is saying that they “will continue to pursue relentlessly those who engage in insider trading, regardless of their status or resources.”  This comes as a lesson that no matter who you are or how much power you have on Wall Street, you are still not exempt from following the law.

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

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

A threat to European nations, Facebook is being seen as a social media giant who are stripping Europeans from their freedom. Facebook is being accused of “collecting digital information about people who are not its users,” by the Belgian Court’s. Many of the “Continent’s data watchdogs,” including the European Court of Justice, have been giving Facebook and other American technology companies a difficult time for the way they “gain access to, manage and use people’s digital information” because to these European “watchdogs,” Facebook is violating Europe’s strict data protection rules that preserves individual’s privacy to the same power as the “fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

The hearing was held in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, November 9th, where Facebook was denied the ability to “collect and store online information from people in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network” stating that Facebook did not have “individuals’ consent to gather the information.” With this decision, the Belgian Court took further action by stating that if Facebook fails to comply with the court’s decision, they’ll receive a “daily fine worth up to $270,000.” Facebook didn’t settle and in response they stated that they have used “cookies for more than five years without facing privacy complaints,” and that they are going to appeal the decision to the Belgian Court of Appeal. As the wait continues, Facebook is being further investigated by five European privacy regulators, which are from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, to see whether or not the “company’s new privacy conditions run afoul of their countries’ domestic data protection rules.”

In the end, Facebook is trying to combat these accusations by stating that only the Irish data protection authority has jurisdiction over its new privacy conditions because Facebook’s international headquarters are in Dublin. The position grew vastly in the last month after the European Court of Justice “gave national authorities greater powers over how companies like Facebook and Google store online data.” Facebook will continue to fight for what they believe are their rights, despite the judges’ ruling that the United States do not offer sufficient protection for Europeans if their data was misused by companies or by government agencies. The issue is still recently new and there are many situations yet to be settled.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Posted by Wing Sze Yu.

In this article, Facebook intends to appeal a data privacy ruling in Belgium. This privacy ruling forces social media to stop collecting digital information from people who are not its users. There is a tough line about how American technology companies, such as Facebook, gain access to, manage and use people’s information on their website even for the European Court of Justice, as well as the European Union’s highest court. In Monday’s ruling, a court in Brussels states that Facebook has no right to collect person information in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network.

Prior to the data privacy rule, Facebook had collect data from people’s online activities, both Facebook users and non Facebook users through digital cookies. Facebook responds that it had been using digital cookies to collect information without facing complaints, so it would appeal the ruling. Yet, Facebook promised to stop collecting online information from people in Belgium who do not have a social media account.

Wing is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.