Posted by Jessica Page.

General Motors Co. has recently been in the news for its faulty ignition switches in over 2.6 million of the company’s Chevrolet Cobolts and other models that were recalled in 2014. The faulty ignition switches were found to “slip out of the run position and disable features including air bags.” This product defect has been connected to over 100 deaths and over 200 injuries. In September, the U.S. Justice Department brought a criminal case against GM. They agreed to pay $900 million to settle and a $35 million fine for not reporting the defect.

On Monday, Judge Robert Gerber stated that it is possible GM will also face punitive damages to compensate consumers who were harmed by the defect, even though the company sought to block plaintiffs making these claims. Judge Gerber has suggested the punitive damages could amount to billions of dollars if the legal claims are settled or successful. This is partially due to the fact that GM admitted in the original settlement that they “[mislead] regulators about the defective switch and [failed] to recall millions of vehicles.”

Another interesting factor for this case is the bankruptcy restructuring GM went through. In the restructure, they assumed responsibility for “future product-liability cases involving older vehicles.” Since this is so broad, it is likely that GM could be held responsible for claims on both compensatory and punitive damage because of its knowledge of the defect and conduct, but only to the extent that the “New GM” holds. GM has agreed to spend over $500 million to settle these cases and over the next few months, the company is expected to face even more death and injury cases that have yet to be settled.

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

Posted by Mladen Trajkov.

Uber has become really successful and has grown and increased its market share tremendously in the last four years. The company is operating worldwide, and is valued around $62.5 billion. Their increase in presence can be seen in various places, especially in New York City. However, not everything looks so perfect with Uber. The drivers are not employed with the company, but they are self-employed and just sign contracts with Uber for the time period of work. Therefore, Uber is not entitled to pay them the minimum wage required by the state. “Research by Citizens Advice has suggested that as many as 460,000 people could be falsely classified as self-employed, costing [millions] a year in lost tax and employer national insurance contributions”, is written in the Guardian. Uber can`t classify its drivers are self-employed, therefore it has to provide the necessary benefits. This is based on two drivers in the UK who were employed by Uber. They were pressured to work long hours, instead of really working for themselves and make their schedule of working hours. Therefore, Uber was accused of “Resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology.”

This is going to have a bigger impact, because Uber is not the only business that does the self-contracting principle. Looking at Uber, a lot of other companies follow what Uber does, implements similar principles, and traps their employees in the self-employment scheme, which of course is not ethical. “The effect of this judgment is that those kinds of business may owe a lot more to their workers, such as paid holiday and minimum wage, than they had bargained for,” is said in the Guardian. This is an opportunity for those workers to enjoy the same privileges as regular workers do, for which they were previously denied and not entitled for.

A self-employed driver for Uber means that they do not qualify for health insurance, holiday pay, or the national minimum wage. On the other side, being self-employed means that you get to choose your hours of work and how much you work; basically you are your own boss. There are drivers who agree with this model, however some drivers are still disappointed. Drivers who agree are happy mostly because of the benefits of health insurance; however, they believe they are going to make less money now if they work less hours and make only the minimum wage. Other drivers who disagree, don`t really see themselves being employed. They prefer the freedom of choosing the hours of work and having their flexible schedule.

Mladen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37802386

Posted by Giancarlo Barrera.

First it was Target, Home Depot, and now, JPMorgan Chase.  They are the next victim under cyber attack. Chase is the biggest bank by assets in the US. They are also the dominate bank in New York City, where the majority of banks’ cooperate headquarters are located . “JPMorgan Chase has 65.8 million open credit card accounts, and 31.8 million of those accounts with sales activity, according to its most recent quarterly report. Chase also has 30.1 million checking accounts.”  According to what the FBI has been investigating, names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails were taken, but no passwords and social security numbers

It was reported that the hackers did not receive any money from this cyberattack. “The bank’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said that the company will spend $250 million this year on cybersecurity, but has been losing security employees to other banks with more “expected to leave soon.”

Giancarlo is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jessica Page.

General Motors Co. has recently been in the news for its faulty ignition switches in over 2.6 million of the company’s Chevrolet Cobolts and other models that were recalled in 2014. The faulty ignition switches were found to “slip out of the run position and disable features including air bags.” This product defect has been connected to over 100 deaths and over 200 injuries. In September, the U.S. Justice Department brought a criminal case against GM. They agreed to pay $900 million to settle and a $35 million fine for not reporting the defect.

On Monday, Judge Robert Gerber stated that it is possible GM will also face punitive damages to compensate consumers who were harmed by the defect, even though the company sought to block plaintiffs making these claims. Judge Gerber has suggested the punitive damages could amount to billions of dollars if the legal claims are settled or successful. This is partially due to the fact that GM admitted in the original settlement that they “[mislead] regulators about the defective switch and [failed] to recall millions of vehicles.”

Another interesting factor for this case is the bankruptcy restructuring GM went through. In the restructure, they assumed responsibility for “future product-liability cases involving older vehicles.” Since this is so broad, it is likely that GM could be held responsible for claims on both compensatory and punitive damage because of its knowledge of the defect and conduct, but only to the extent that the “New GM” holds. GM has agreed to spend over $500 million to settle these cases and over the next few months, the company is expected to face even more death and injury cases that have yet to be settled.

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

Members of organized crime, drug dealers, and terrorists transact their “business” in cash to hide their tracks. As part of a scheme to launder money (make it look it was earned legitimately), criminals will deposit their ill-earned cash in bank accounts. In response, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act, requiring banks to assist the government in catching money launderers.

Under the Act, banks are required to report any cash transaction or combination of cash transactions in excess of $10,000 to the IRS.  Knowing this, criminals resort to structuring. Structuring is the deliberate parcelling of a large cash deposit into a series of smaller transactions in order to avoid detection by regulators. When bank officials suspect structuring is occurring, they are required to file a suspicious activity report, or SAR, and notify regulators of what they believe is happening.

In Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994), the Supreme Court found that government had to prove that defendant acted with knowledge that structuring is unlawful. As a result, Congress removed the “willfulness” requirement making it easier for the government tor prosecute structuring cases. The IRS, however, has been seizing assets of legitimate businesses and individuals without any proof or any charges filed. Small business and individuals can be a target. In one case, the IRS seized $66,000 from an Army sergeant’s college savings account, even though the sergeant was told by the bank teller to make smaller deposits in order to avoid taxes. Removing the “willfulness” requirement makes structuring a strict liability crime.

In a written statement, Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, said, “After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year . . . IRS-CI will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with ‘legal source’ structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level.”

Snow shoveling always has been a means for young people to learn how to run a business. They learn how to advertise, interact with customers, work for a competitive wage, and learn something about service to the community. All businesses are at the service of others; and, snow shoveling, like delivering newspapers, or running a lemonade stand, give young people a way of learning responsibility.

Governor Christie just signed into law (before a major snowstorm) making it legal for residents to offer snow shoveling services without first applying for a permit. Last year, Bound Brook, New Jersey police stopped two entrepreneurial teens for going door-to-door and offering to shovel snow for a small fee. The police told the boys they were not allowed to solicit businesses without a permit. In Bound Brook, the license costs $450. The case made national headlines.

Republican State Sen. Mike Doherty sponsored the “‘right-to-shovel’” bill, stating it “was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.”

“The bill removes only licensing requirements for snow shoveling services, and only applies to solicitations made within 24 hours before a predicted snow storm. Towns with laws prohibiting door-to-door solicitation will be able to enforce those laws in all other circumstances.”

Posted by Ashley Torres.

In July of 2012, Marissa Mayer became both the President and Chief Executive Officer of Yahoo!. During her time within the company, she has found herself involved in many lawsuits, and is yet hit with another. Recently, in the San Jose District, a former media executive known as Scott Ard filed the lawsuit against Mayer. He is accusing her of running a campaign that discriminates against male employees, specifically. His reason behind this alleged accusation includes Mayer’s implemented “use of the employee performance rating system to accommodate management’s subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo’s male employees.” Mayar states the employee performance rate system has improved their overall performance, but Ard believes he was fired not because of his performance, but because of his gender.

Besides just accusing Mayer, Kathy Savitt, former chief marketing office, and Megan Liberman, editor in chief, are also involved in the lawsuit for discriminating against men. As evidence of this accusation, the lawsuit alleges that 14 of the 16 senior-level editorial employees were female whom were purposely hired by Savitt, while firing men because of their gender.

In February of 2016, there was another filed lawsuit with similar accusations. A former employee by the name of Gregory Anderson was fired, while he attended a fellowship at the University of Michigan. Anderson too believed that he was fired because of his gender and not his performance because when he asked to view his documentations with his performance that supposedly resulted in his termination, Anderson was denied. Both Anderson and Ard are represented by the same attorney, Jon Parsons, in which he declined in making any comments.

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

Criminal law is certainly an important part of the study of business law, and Fourth Amendment questions always seem to come up in class.  Students are very interested in learning about when the police can search a person’s car, office or home, or when and where can they arrest someone. Generally, police need a warrant either to search a person’s property or to arrest, unless it falls within a constitutional exception.

Most students do not know that there is a difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant.  An arrest warrant is an order by the court directing a sheriff, constable or police officer to find and arrest a person who is wanted for a crime.  In contrast, a search warrant permits a law enforcement officer to search a person’s place of residence or other location for evidence of a crime.  An arrest warrant, however, does not permit the police to search a home or building for a person where the police reasonably believes the person named in the arrest warrant may be found without the consent of the owner.  The question then becomes whether there are any other times police may enter certain areas of a third-party home and search for a person even though they are only acting pursuant to an arrest warrant.

In the New Jersey Appellate Division decision, State v. Craft, 425 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2012), Judge Graves held that exigent circumstances permitted the police to enter a bedroom of a third-party home to arrest defendant for a shooting even though they were operating solely under the authority of an arrest warrant.  The facts are as follows.

The Newark Police Department’s Fugitive Apprehension Team is responsible to dispatch officers to certain addresses where fugitives may be found based on certain intelligence.  James Craft was wanted for a shooting.  Officers arrived at the location noted in the arrest warrant.  It was a three-family dwelling located on South 13th Street.  The police believed that defendant was residing there with family on the second-floor.

The front door to the residence was open, and the police proceeded to the second floor.  The officers were in plain clothes, but at least one of them was wearing a badge around his neck. Defendant’s mother opened the door and permitted the police to enter.  The officers told defendant’s mother that they had a warrant to arrest her son. Defendant’s mother told the police that her son was not there, but offered to call him on her cell phone.  Upon dialing the number, the police heard a phone ringing behind a bedroom door. The officers believed it was defendant’s cell phone ringing and that he would most likely be in the bedroom.

When they opened the bedroom door, they found defendant attempting to escape.  The police testified they saw defendant drop a handgun as he climbed through the window.  They also discovered five vials of cocaine in plain view on the top of a dresser.  Defendant was arrested and charged.  The trial court suppressed the evidence finding that the “coincidence of a phone ringing” was insufficient evidence to justify entry into the bedroom without a search warrant and that the police did not have an “objectively reasonable belief” that “defendant both resided at and would be found at” his mother’s apartment.

On appeal, the court reversed, holding that “there was no constitutional violation by the police, and it was error to suppress the items that were seized. The arrest warrant provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest; the officers entered the apartment with [defendant’s mother’s consent]; and [the police] had reason to believe defendant was present in an adjoining room when a cell phone began ringing after [defendant’s mother] called her son.  In addition, the officers knew the arrest warrant was for ‘a shooting’ and, therefore, defendant was potentially dangerous.  Under these circumstances, there was a compelling need for immediate action to apprehend defendant, and it was impracticable for the officers to obtain a search warrant.  Thus, their entry into the bedroom was objectively reasonable, and the items seized were in plain view.”

Here, the exigency to protect persons inside the home from being shot by a potentially armed individual excused the police from failing to consider the possible “coincidence” of the phone ring. According to one of the officers, upon hearing the phone ring at the time defendant’s mother dialed, he reasoned since people generally stay close to their cell phones, he would find defendant next to his.  As a result, the search into the bedroom was reasonable.

Posted by Michael Ragone.

Recently, McDonalds workers have opened up explaining in detail, sexual harassment incidents that they have experienced while at work. Until last year, under the law, McDonald’s could not be held accountable for labor violations in franchise owned stores. With that being said, McDonalds still ignored all serious instances. Most of the incidents, had to deal with employees being touched, grabbed and slapped, which of course is a clear violation of any moral values. In a video that was shared most of the statements were, “Grabbed my waist, tried to kiss me, touched my breast, grabbed my leg.” “Grab, touch, rubbing up, no, this is not okay.” Some workers were even shown pornographic images from their supervisors. Where in one case, a women’s boss offered her one thousand dollars in exchange for oral sex. This sparked an activist group, “Fight for 15” because of the 15 different claims.

In a recent study, “two in five women working in fast food reported experiencing some sort of sexual harassment ” which is an extremely high percentage. Men and women should be able to work in a safe environment with rules and codes of conduct. In a statement, McDonalds tried to distant themselves from their franchises trying to make them look independent. Fight for 15 is planning protests nationwide over McDonald’s handling of sexual harassment. When women employees went to speak up and report the incidents they were punished with their hours and pay being cut. One of the managers said, “You shouldn’t have flirted with him.” Not in any way is it the employees fault and they shouldn’t have to work in hostile working environments. When you have to live pay check to pay check and barely make enough to get by, speaking up means putting your job at risk.

If McDonalds ignores these harassment claims, their long term reputation and profit maximization will deteriorate. In order to make the work environment safer, there should be people who employees can report problems to right away. The employees affected by this harassment “aren’t seeking monetary damages” and only seek for “McDonald’s to enforce its publicly stated no-tolerance policy for sexual harassment.” This would of course mean that anyone who was proven to be harassing employees in any way would no longer be able to continue employment. When natural law is considered, these workers should all have equal rights to earn a living without worrying about a possible threat to them. This problem is even worse for “immigrant workers” says the Fight for 15 because they are not fully aware of their rights and thus leaving them more vulnerable for exploitation. It is also common that women did not want to speak out in fear of losing their jobs, and of course this would mean not being able to support themselves and possible loved ones. By re-enacting the zero tolerance policy, women will be able to go to work feeling like they are equal to everyone because harassment rates will plummet.

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

Posted by Melani Filosa.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, a regulatory committee created by the Consumer Product Safety Act enacted in 1972, regulates all consumer products in order to protect the buyer. They promote safety by issuing recalls, developing standards, and requiring warning labels. Because this committee regulates consumer products, they first needed to define exactly what fell under the tile of a “consumer product.” The definition can be found in Section 3 of the CPSA (Consumer Product Safety Act) linked here https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/105435/cpsa.pdf. The act creates exact parameters of what the CPSC can regulate, which excludes all firearms and ammunition. The exact language of the Act reads “The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall make no ruling or order that restricts the manufacture or sale of firearms, fire-arms ammunition, or components of firearms ammunition, including black powder or gunpowder for firearms Section 3(e) of P.L. 94-284 [S. 644]; May 11, 1976,” generating the obvious question: should firearms be included in the definition of “consumer product,” or would that type of regulation be unconstitutional. Because the debate over gun use has been in the spotlight, it is important to know the argument for more regulation and that against it. This post will aim to inform only, in the hopes of creating knowledgeable voters on either side of the issue.

The Trace, an online news media source whose mission is to “close that deficit through daily reporting, investigations,” wrote an article titled “Cars, Toys, and Aspirin have to Meet Mandatory Safety Standards. Guns Don’t. Here’s Why,” written by Olivia Li. The argument in favor of expanding the definition often relies on the popular gun/car analogy, used by individuals and President Obama alike. Here is essentially how that analogy goes: automobiles have regulations, such as seatbelt use and airbag regulations, in order to protect both drivers and pedestrians, and we have also created regulatory agencies to oversee that automobiles are built to meet these standards. At the same time, there are no regulations or oversight in the creation of guns, which are arguably used in households and therefore a consumer product, just like a car. Li writes:

No federal agency oversees how firearms are designed or built. While the federal government can mandate recalls of unsafe toys, polluting cars, or even discolored medications, it’s unable to recall defective firearms. There is also no system in place to track accidental deaths caused by malfunctioning weapons. Rather, the firearms industry self-polices its products, establishing its own design standards and initiating its own voluntary recalls.

This quote captures the essence of the argument in favor of expanding the definition. If every other product used by a consumer, which is pretty much everything, can be regulated, why should guns be any different. It is important to note, however, that there are safety standards imposed by SAMMI, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, yet these standards are voluntary. Those who wish to expand the definition believe these regulations should not be voluntary and gun safety should not “fall on the shoulders of the gun owner,” but instead by mandated by the federal government and regulated by in agencies.

Again, the question asked by those in favor of expanding the definition is why are guns different than other products, which leads to the argument against the change to the definition. The two major arguments from this side are 1) there are regulations, and the gun manufacturer can only be held responsible to a point, and of course 2) the Second Amendment. The first defense, argued by NPR on their “Break it Down” page, where they breakdown what candidates and politicians say and fact check their statements. The article entitled “FACT CHECK: Are Gun-Makers ‘Totally Free of Liability For Their Behavior’?” points out that, in fact, gun companies are liable for their products in certain instances and are responsible for meeting standards and regulations. This leads to the arguments against expansion of the definition. They essentially argue that with more regulations, gun manufacturers will unfairly be held responsible for misuse of guns, turning the gun/automobile analogy on its head saying car manufacturers are not held responsible for drunk drivers. This argument relies on the gun doing what it is intended to do. As Kortzleben states “If you aim and fire a gun at an attacker, it’s doing what it was intended to do.” Finally, the Second Amendment argument states that the U.S. Constitution does not allow for the same regulation of guns, and that any changes to include guns as a consumer product would be unconstitutional, which again can be found in the CPSA itself.

As one can easily see, after reading the arguments on either side of the discussion, the authority and legality to include guns and firearms under the definition of consumer product is unclear. Both arguments root themselves in the American legal system. For this reason, it is imperative to understand the discussion and confront the proposed problems in either argument, creating an informed constituency who cares about their rights and the issues. The argument over gun control is not going anywhere, and therefore it becomes each of our duty to know the debate.

Melani is an English major with a minor in legal studies at the Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Works Cited:

https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/105435/cpsa.pdf

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/gun-safety-standards/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior

Posted by Michaela Jerkowski.

In recent events, McDonald’s Restaurants settled a labor lawsuit pending from 2014, and was ordered in federal court to pay $3.75 million dollars to about 800 employees in California. The lawsuit states that Smith Family LP, who franchised five restaurants in California, “violated California law by failing to pay overtime, keep accurate pay records and reimburse workers for time spent cleaning uniforms.” (Fortune 6).  The case was the first time in history that McDonald’s settled a class action law suit that was filed by franchise employees.

Over the past couple of years, McDonald’s has dealt with multiple different problems involving franchise employees. Aside from this multi-million dollar lawsuit, they were also hit with a sexual assault lawsuit involving 15 franchise employees. The McDonald’s corporation has been in and out of court trying to find out whether or not they are considered joint employers with the franchise owners who are causing this backlash with employees.

Although you might think that this lawsuit isn’t much of a high profile case, considering McDonald’s is a billion dollar company, the reason it’s been brought so much attention is because it’s the “the first time the company has settled legal claims by a group of U.S. workers at one of its franchises.”(Time 1). This lawsuit could open doors for many more that may appear in the future, so it would not be a surprise if the company now gets hit with more lawsuits.

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

Sources:

http://time.com/4552835/mcdonalds-settlement-labor-law-california/?xid=IFT-Section

http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/mcdonalds-court-settlement-franchise-workers-california/