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/

Posted by Charles Matta.

UPS (or United Parcel Service) is known worldwide as the world’s largest package delivery company and provider of supply chain management solutions. There is no questioning the success that this company has had, but is there a question of their morality? Recently, UPS was supposed to be looking for clues and observing its trucks thoroughly for illegal transportation of products. It was found that UPS had been illegally transporting untaxed cigarettes from Indian reservations to customers throughout the state of New York. And while they were supposedly “observing the trucks” it was in fact believed that they had “turned a blind eye” and now the tax regulators of the state of New York are asking for the judge to impose an 873 million dollar penalty.

An eight day federal civil trial occurred with closings statements regarding the issue saying that UPS “had a corporate culture that favored sales opportunities over a responsibility to help New York enforce tax law.” The article states that this happened because: “Tobacco retailers located on upstate reservations were given price discounts for shipping in volume. Delivery drivers were allowed to accept iPads and other gifts from shippers. Account executives, whose compensation was tied to keeping big accounts, ignored signs that some customers signing delivery contracts dealt in cigarettes.” The lawyers of New York City and New York State are saying that UPS must be held accountable for what they determine to be about a decade’s worth of misconduct.

On the other hand, UPS has argued that it did follow the rules and restrictions applied to the company, but they can only do so much about policing its 1.6 million daily shippers are sending in sealed packages. In its legal filings, its lawyers said the city and state have offered no proof it “knew or consciously avoided knowing that any shipper was shipping cigarettes.” Now, UPS has terminated contracts with shippers who were known to be violating these packaging rules. “The state and city impose some of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the country in an effort to halt tobacco use,” and because of this, there are 28,000 deaths annually which causes tax payers 10.4 billion in health care related costs. One account executive writes “’I wish UPS would just take the high road, and say NO TOBACCO, NO ACHOHOL (sic), PERIOD.” UPS needs to be more strict on what is or isn’t successful and must find a way to monitor their business operations better.

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

Posted by Gregory Scavelli.

Super storm Sandy had a devastating impact on the North-Eastern portion of the United States, areas like Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut got trashed because of the regions un-preparedness in cases of the storm. To bring in a personal connection, the area that I am from on Long Island got it particularly bad, the Long Beach boardwalk that was a staple of the town since 1914 was completely broken down and destroyed and after that the town went into rebuilding mode. Now Long Beach is for the most part is better than the way it was before the storm. This was happening the other regions as well, the Jersey Shore was another area that got hit particularly badly. It’s been 4 years since the storm, but now that the re-building process is almost complete a lot of problems are steaming from it.

Since the storm New Jersey state prosecutors have filled criminal chargers to 161 cases for over 15 million dollars on account of fraud. More than one third of those cases have been fired this year. An example of an Ocean County motel pleaded guilty to falsely claiming that he had sheltered Sandy victims to get $81,000 in federal funds.

The problem facing many of these corporations is that many of them have no ethical business policies. For example raising the price of gas in the time of a crisis is very unethical because in most of these crisis situations people are low on money and making the pay extra for basic needs is unethical. Also, taking personal benefit in a crisis situation is also unethical, the example I earlier about the motel using falsified records to get reimbursed is just taking a situation in which people are suffering and using it for gain. Which is just a very un-ethical way of doing business.

Gregory is a sports management and marketing major with a minor in legal studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Cody Wimmer.

Recently AstraZeneca made a statement warning Britain that pharmaceutical companies may be moving out and away from Britain due to their low-funding and exit of the European Union. In Britain, funding for clinical drugs goes through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), “which is based on how cost-effective a drug is.” The issue lies in the fact that many of these drugs are very expensive and serve only to help a few patients with very rare diseases or cases. Nice is not as interested in funding those projects as it is in funding projects that could help more people.

Not only is there a lack of funding from the UK, but since they left the European Union the market in which to sell the products has become much smaller. Before the exit Big Pharma companies could freely trade between the EU with a very little extra cost, but that cost has grown substantially to the point where they might have to look elsewhere.  Lisa Anson notes “England spends £6,500 a head on medicines per person. By contrast, in France and Germany it is £12,000 to £13,000.” This shows that not only is the market much smaller in terms of the people that could potentially need the medication, but also that the UK is less willing to spend money on the research and the medication itself.

If the UK does not soon change the way they look at and fund medical treatment they will start to greatly fall behind the rest of Europe, if not the world. They no longer can rely on their European Union trading nor their outdated government health care spending to keep them afloat and keep them ahead in terms of research. If they want to have a chance to keep the pharmaceutical companies in the UK they are going to have to make some major changes in their health care system.

Cody is an information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Katherine Harris.

This article brings up the question whether or not a company has liability in how or when the customer uses their product. In this case, Ashley Kubiak was driving her Dodge Ram truck, as she checked her iPhone for text messages. Kubiak then crashed her truck into another vehicle killing two people and paralyzing a child. This is just one case of distracted driving that we have seen a rise in throughout the past 50 years. The families of the victims have sued Apple because, Apple knows that their devices are distracting to drivers, but did not prevent Kubiak from using it while driving.

While a Texas magistrate made a suggestion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the lawyers could not prove the iPhone caused the fatal accident. “Ms. Kubiak was convicted of negligent homicide and sentenced to five years on probation” (Richtel). Kubiak now leaves her phone in the back seat to avoid the temptation of using it while driving. This case of Apple’s iPhone product liability puts Apple in a difficult situation. Especially, because Apple has the technology to prevent texting while operating a motor vehicle, but has not implemented it.

Although, there are laws and public education initiatives against distracted driving, Apple, Verizon, and AT&T acknowledge the effectiveness of these campaigns. Deborah Hersman, the president of the National Safety Council and the former chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board said it best, “The technology exists – we just don’t have the stomach to implement it” (Richtel). Implementing the technology to turn off text messaging while someone is driving brings up questions about the economic, social, and ethical concerns.

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