Posted by Natalie Dorley.

In March 2005, the plaintiff who was aged fifty-two at the time, went to the emergency department of the hospital. The patient was experiencing symptoms of “…transient episodes of blurred vision” (Laska) and numbness of the right hand. “He was examined by a doctor and nurse “A.” “The plaintiff’s symptoms quickly resolved and a CT scan did not reveal abnormalities”(Laska). Thus, he seemed to be in a stage where all was well and that there was nothing wrong with him. The doctor gave the plaintiff a diagnosis of ischemic attack and contacted his treating physician.

In addition to the examination, his physician requested a neurological evaluation and arranged a transfer to the hospital’s telemetric monitoring area (Laska). The doctor and nurse “A” performed a final examination of him before following his physician’s orders and found no neurological abnormalities. “About twenty minutes later the plaintiff was examined by another nurse,’B,’ who noted slurred speech, confusion, and weakness on the right side” (Laska). Nurse “B” reported these symptoms to the emergency department and was told that the symptoms were nonexistent when the doctor and nurse “A” examined the plaintiff. “Nurse “B” then contacted the doctor who then requested an immediate neurological consultation by a neurologist. The neurologist examined the plaintiff over an hour later” (Laska). By then, it was already too late for the plaintiff to receive the treatment, since the plaintiff has already been at the hospital for over six hours. The treatment must administered to the patient within three hours of the symptoms.

The next day, the plaintiff experienced a full stroke. He eventually was transferred to another hospital and was hospitalized for a certain amount of weeks. I believe the doctor and nurse “A” should have administered all the neurological tests possible because one test may show symptoms while another may not. Now, the plaintiff has lasting conditions that affected his quality of life forever. The plaintiff “…continued to have partial paralysis of his right arm, aphasia, mild impairment of cognitive functions, and foot drop of the right foot” (Laska). Even though he functions through most of his everyday life activities, he requires a cane now (Laska). Since they were not as attentive as they should have been, a $4 million dollar settlement was instated at the end of the trial.

Natalie is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Alexa Christie.

Amazon has sued their logistics executive after he violated a non-compete clause for joining a rival company. Arthur Valdez was hired as Target’s new chief supply chain and logistics officer and disclosed confidential information about Amazon to Target. Amazon filed a suit in King County Superior Court in Washington against Valdez. “Mr. Valdez’s new position with a key Amazon competitor will involve the disclosure and use of Amazon’s confidential and proprietary information to Amazon’s detriment and Target’s advantage in a core area of competition between the companies: the cost-effective and rapid movement of goods in the most efficient way possible for retail customers,” Amazon said in the suit.

Valdez signed the non-compete clause in 2012 and was expected to start work at Target next week (March 27, 2016-April 2, 2016). Valdez leaked information to Target about Amazon. Target’s spokeswoman claims the information will remain confidential and did not comment any further at that time.

Alexa is a business administration major with a concentration in management at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

The Justice Department charged fourteen people, including nine current or former FIFA figures and five sports marketing professionals, for allegedly “‘foster[ing] a culture of corruption and greed that created an uneven playing field for the biggest sport in the world,’” FBI Director James Comey said. The government alleged racketeering and corruption involving more than $150 million in bribes and kickbacks spanning two decades.

“The investigation grew out of allegations of payoffs to officials who decided where to hold the next two World Cups, the biggest international event in sports, that landed the games in Russia for 2018 and Qatar in 2022, according to three senior U.S. law enforcement officials. The U.S. was runner-up to Qatar’s win.”

FIFA appears to be relieved with the indictments. In a statement posted on its website, it said it “welcomes actions that can help contribute to rooting out any wrongdoing in football.”  FIFA further said, “We are pleased to see that the investigation is being energetically pursued for the good of football and believe that it will help reinforce measures that FIFA has already taken.”

The Clinton Foundation is under scrutiny for accepting money from FIFA and Qatar.  “In 2014, the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee, set up by the Qatar government to ensure a successful FIFA world cup, awarded the Clinton Foundation between $250,000 and $500,000; the State of Qatar donated between $1 million and $5 million.”  According to the Clinton Foundation website, the money was for “research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup to improve food security in Qatar, the Middle East, and other arid and water-stressed regions throughout the world.”

Posted by Sam Battista.

I came across this article recently about these topics that were brought up in class, and I thought it was appropriate to write a blog pertaining to this article. Seven reputable members of the Geneovese crime family were recently arrested on accounts of money laundering and racketeering. The group allegedly raked in millions of dollars through the Garden State by gambling, loansharking, and unlicensed check cashing. Most of these charges fall under the RICO laws because this is organized crime.

The group ran a massive loansharking operation, which generated about 1.3 million dollars in interest a year. It operated an offshore Costa Rica Gambling website and an unlicensed check cashing business, making over nine million in fees over a four year run. The group also laundered $660,000 dollars in drug money out of a Florida based check cashing entity. The group also gave out multimillion dollar loans with interest rates upwards of 156 percent. In addition, the group ran a illegal check cashing business out of a restaurant in Newark that cashed-in over 400 million dollars.

All of these violations are prohibited in the RICO laws and are considered organized crime. Most of the acts committed were covered or ran out of legitimate businesses. These individuals were all from New Jersey and are currently being prosecuted for their federal violations. People often think these type of crimes only happen in movies, but the truth is it’s a multimillion dollar business with violations happening everyday.

Sam is a business administration major with a concentration in real estate at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jen Suarez.

On April 6th, 2015, Phi Kappa Psi at University of Virginia announced that it is taking legal action against Rolling Stone Magazine for falsely accusing them of gang rape. Columbia Journalism School Review stated the magazine “acted recklessly and defamed the chapter’s members” by publishing this “shock narrative” and as a result the fraternity house has been vandalized. A police investigation was started but was suspended due to lack of evidence after two weeks.

The woman who wrote the article, only identified as “Jackie,” claimed to be the victim of this gang rape. Rolling Stone magazine vowed to analyze their practices and remove the article, which has been viewed by millions, but publisher Jann S. Wenner refused to fire anyone for this obvious case of bad journalism. The fraternity stated, “The reporter in question not only failed to apologize to members of Phi Kappa Psi, but doesn’t even acknowledge the three witnesses she quoted in the article but never interviewed.” This controversy has damaged the school’s reputation, sparked protests, and hurt efforts to fight sexual violence. Rolling Stone Managing Editor, Will Dana, and author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, have both apologized but the school and fraternity are still waiting for a sincere apology from corporate and for those responsible for this serious fault to be reprimanded.

Libel is the defamation by written or printed words, pictures, spoken words, or gestures. It is also defined as malicious and damaging misrepresentation. We have all seen ignorant comments on the Internet from people all over the world. They say inaccurate and hurtful things because they can hide behind a keyboard and these vicious comments can be very damaging to the reputation of the individual and company. They cry out “Freedom of Speech!” but they aren’t exercising their rights; they are intentionally trying to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Defamation is considered a civil wrong and is cause for a lawsuit for damages. In many cases, the target must be able to prove that the statements published were a lie. In this case, however, there is overwhelming lack of evidence and inaccurate information.

Jen is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Cell phone video capability is commonplace now, and police in New Jersey are getting used to it. Experts claim that under the First Amendment recording police in plain view is protected. A police officer may not seize a cell phone, delete anything on it, or even demand that the person turn it over to him without a warrant. As long as the person is not truly interfering with a police investigation, they can record as much as they want.

Robert W. Fox, president of the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of Police, stated police should face the fact that cell phone cameras are a reality.  “‘We tell our officers out there . . . that, anything they do, consider themselves being filmed,’” Fox said. “‘No matter where you are anymore, there is some sort of video on the incident – whether it comes from a building camera or an individual cellphone or things like that.’” Arguably, the videos not only protect citizens but also the police from being falsely accused. For most police, video recording should not matter, because they are doing things by the book anyway.

It should be noted that cell phone videos may not capture everything that is taking place during a police encounter. Therefore, rushing to judgment against police would be unfair.

The Federal Reserve has a lot of power over the economy. It is obligated to promote maximum employment and guard against inflation. In the near term, long-term interest rates, which presently are very low, could rise after the Fed raises its benchmark rate. Rates have been hovering near zero since 2008. Yellen is cautious, however, not to take the market by surprise with any change in monetary policy.

In a recent interview, Yellen said equity market valuations are high and warns of “potential dangers.” Yellen said that “she sees risks as moderated and does not see any bubbles forming, though the central bank is watching the issue closely.”

According to the latest ruling by Second Circuit, the NSA’s collection of massive amounts of phone records violated the US Patriot Act. Although they never reached the constitutional question, the court said that Congress never gave the agency the authority. But Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, believes the court had it wrong, and that Section 215, the provision in question, authorizes the NSA to conduct mass collections. The Act is set to expire in a few weeks. Congress will either renew the Act, change it, or eliminate it altogether.

Under Section 215, certain investigators

may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

The controversy is over the words “any intangible things,” and in other parts of the Act, the words “information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” The court agreeing with privacy advocates that the “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation” language is too broad. Members of Congress, however, believe that the language is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks. In any event, any phone record seizure must be preceded by a warrant.

The House is set to vote on the USA Freedom Act. The Freedom Act extends the Patriot Act but removes the power of the NSA to collect bulk phone records.

Posted by Nadia Haddad.

“Intellectual Property law works, until it is stretched.” According to a New York Times article, the problem with intellectual property law is that lawyers try to push the idea of I.P. too far in other areas, like software development, because they believe more the better. The article states that a software patent is a good example of a failed “experiment” because no one today can name a major software innovation whose investments relied on a patent. Some software innovations such as Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, Netscape’s browser, or Google’s search are not responsible for their existence because of a patent. The article mentioned how software patents are expensive, threaten competition, and are occasionally used for accounting fraud.

Intellectual Property plays an important role for all humans in society. In general terms, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others. Intellectual property is important because it drives economic growth and competition, as well as creating and supporting high paying jobs.

The mind is the most important thing a human possesses, because that is the root of who you are and what you want to do. We live life through people’s intellectual properties or inventions, which is why we need to protect them.

Nadia is a business administration major with a minor in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Stephanie Simms.

In this article, Ruby Tuesday is facing a civil rights lawsuit for discriminating against male job candidates. The government is suing on behalf of, Andrew Herrera, who worked at an Oregon Ruby Tuesday, and Joshua Bell, who worked at a Ruby Tuesday in Republic, Missouri. They were only allowed to work there for a temporary period of time. What makes the situation worse for Ruby Tuesday is they specifically had an internal job posting that stated only girls should apply to their restaurant. The law of discrimination based on gender states that, employers are prohibited from classifying jobs based on gender, unless employer can prove gender is essential to the job.

The government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Oregon. The lawsuit explains how the postings which were passed around to stores within nine states, and their content is a violation to the Equal Opportunity Employment laws from the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo stated, “It’s rare to see an explicit example of sex discrimination like Ruby Tuesday’s internal job announcement. . . . This suit is a cautionary tale to employers that sex-based employment decisions are rarely justified and are not consistent with good business judgment.” Everyone is entitled a fair chance when it comes to jobs, because one cannot just tell someone they cannot work somewhere without putting them up to the task. Both of the men say they were denied the opportunity to earn more money because they were not allowed to compete for the jobs.

In the end, Ruby Tuesday hired seven women and no men for the 2013 summer jobs. EEOC’s Seattle Field Office Director, Nancy Sienko said, “[Mr. Herrera] was shocked and angered that Ruby Tuesday would categorically exclude him and other male employees” from a lucrative job. The job announcement was distributed to restaurants located in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

The lawsuit does not indicate exactly how much in damages the men were seeking for the discrimination due to their gender.

Stephanie is business administration with a minor in biology at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.