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.

Posted by Mihran Naltchayan.

Watching the news earlier, I heard a report that the juvenile ages among the states in the United States are all different. I always thought that any person eighteen or younger is considered a juvenile. That is a false assumption on my part.

In New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina, a juvenile is considered sixteen years or younger. I found this awkward because I don’t find people mature at age 16; I think after 18 years old juveniles should know between right and wrong and learn from it. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, a juvenile is age 17 or less. Wyoming is the only state that has established the age of juveniles to be 19 or younger. (Juvenile Justice 1). Everyone matures at different rates, but the average age people start maturing, I believe, is 18 years old.

“Relying on age as a sole determinant for adulthood has been criticized by many criminologists and policy makers since individuals develop at different rates.” (Juvenile Justice 2). I guess these states come up with these juvenile ages because of the environment/life they live in, but I disagree. It should be after high school, which is usually over 18, that states should be consider a person to be an adult.

Mihran is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jenifer Canas-Benavides.

Uber and Lyft expanded their business enormously. Everyone by now has heard of at least one of these taxi like services. Why are they so popular? Uber offers a free ride of approximately $25 to their first time users with a special code. Lyft also offers the same promotion. So what is the biggest problem with services? The problem is the driver that picks up whoever requested the ride. I used Uber before, and in the back of my mind, I wondered if my driver was a safe driver or if they had no bad driving records. I’m sure many people think the same thing. That is why Governor Charlie Baker has proposed new rules for the riding services.

In the article, Governor Baker proposed a law that requires that the company make two background checks on their drivers. Massachusetts’s regulators would regulate these rules. Anyone who fails the checks would not be allowed to work for these riding services companies. Massachusetts has already seen some charges made my women who said their Uber driver assaulted them. However, the proposal does not specifically state what can disqualify a person from working for the company.

Other rules are that the cars being used will need an annual inspection to insure a safer trip. In order for this law to go in place, there needs to be some money that will need to pay for insurance, inspections, and other duties. Which are why, the taxes paid by the company will be used to offset those expenses. This proposal is still being reviewed. If passed, it would take about 6 months for the Massachusetts DPU to start making the regulations.

Jenifer is a business administration student at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

After the release of Chris Kyle’s 2013 memoir, Jesse Ventura was very displeased to find out that Kyle was making claims about punching him in the face in 2006. Kyle did not use Ventura’s name in the book, but only referred to the incident by saying he “knocked out a celebrity.” Only in later interviews did Kyle publicly acknowledge the mystery celebrity as Ventura.

This angered Ventura especially due to the fact that he claimed that Kyle was making the story up. Ventura who was also a Navy veteran was even more displeased to find out that Kyle’s reason for hitting him, as depicted in the book, was due to Ventura making disrespectful remarks about the military. Ventura immediately took the matter to the courts. Not too long after, Kyle was killed at a shooting range and left behind a loving family and many adoring admirers.

Ventura still went ahead with the lawsuit and ended up suing New York publishing company HarperCollins over the book, claiming defamation. He was then awarded 1.8 million dollars from Chris Kyle’s estate. The aftermath of the lawsuit angered many people and soiled Ventura’s name even more. Ventura has said many times that he has no regrets over what he did and meant no harm or disrespect towards Kyle’s family and widow. Although many people across the country are now holding a grudge against the former Minnesota governor, he still won the battle of legal games.

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Stephanie Simms.

Over the past decade or so, Congress has created multiple bills with regard to cybersecurity, but sadly made no progress whatsoever. In December 2014, lawmakers along with the President set aside disagreements over the topic of cybersecurity reform and passed the following into law: (1) National Cybersecurity Protection Act (NCPA); (2) Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (CEA); (3) Federal Information System Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA 2014); (4) Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act (CWWA); and (5) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act (BPAPRA).

These bills mentioned above generally address federal government departments with respect to cybersecurity. FISMA 2014, is a revision of the Federal Information Security Management Act 0f 2002 (FISMA) and was meant to “provide a framework for the federal government to assess and ensure its information security controls.” The CWWA and BPAPRA handle cybersecurity workforce issues at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The NCPA focuses only on promoting “information sharing” between the government and the private sector via DHS. The CEA officially is a bill that is governed-focused, but of all the bills passed in December, “it is the one that may have the biggest chances of causing unintentional effects on private sector organizations.”

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

Posted by Tommy Donofrio.

According to Forbes, Koch Industries, Inc. in Wichita, Kansas is one of the largest private companies in the United States. It employs in excess of 60,000 workers largely in manufacturing. As such, the company’s decision to remove the criminal history question from their job application is newsworthy. Their objective is to “give ex-felons and others with criminal records a better shot at employment.” Koch thereby joins the “ban the box” movement which wants employers to wait until prospective applicants have been interviewed or have been given job offers before inquiring about their criminal background. With a company as large as Koch embracing such a policy, it suggests that this idea may gain momentum.

Mark Holden, Koch’s general counsel and senior vice president, asks, “Do we want to be judged for the rest of our life for something that happened on our worst day?” Certainly not, but research by the National Employment Law Project estimates that somewhere close to 70 million Americans have a criminal offense that will show up on a routine employment background check. Armed with this information, these job seekers are consistently being locked out of the market. Delaying the criminal question until applicants have been evaluated based on their qualifications will give these individuals a chance at securing a position. As Koch Industries, Inc. sees it, “ban the box” is a fair-chance hiring policy that should be adopted to aid the criminal justice system. Currently, federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit automatically banning the hiring of an individual with a criminal record. Disclosing criminal information later in the interview process fosters the application of the federal laws.

To date, 6 states, Washington D.C. and 11 cities have adopted these fair-chance hiring policies.

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

Posted by Taylor Gonzales.

A major issue in the United States is the suffering economy. There are not many jobs to apply for and even those available do not pay enough to support oneself or their family. To counteract this issue, states have opted to give a higher minimum wage. In Seattle, they have chosen to raise it to $11 per hour this year; they are allowing small businesses to adjust to the set price of $15 per hour over six years and larger businesses get two years to rise up to that amount. Such a change may be good in terms of income for employees, yet it offsets the business and their current budget.

A pizza shop in Seattle has to close down because it is considered a large business and is unable to make the adjustment of the high wage hike within two years. Ritu Burnham, the owner of the shop, stated, “I’ve let one person go since April 1[;] I’ve cut hours since April 1[;] I’ve taken them myself because I don’t pay myself,” she says. “I’ve also raised my prices a little bit[;] there’s no other way to do it” (Patel, 2015).

Legislation that enforces minimum wage seems to be aimed to protect people, except business profits should be taken into account as well. One idea is each business have a set wage that is efficient for them to stay open and large enough to support their employees. That wage would be enforced through a contract, and if the potential employee comes to an agreement with their wage proposal, then they will sign and be hired.

Sometimes the government needs to allow businesses to take care of themselves, especially in hopes of bettering the economy.

Taylor is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Sylvia Bis.

Workers who quit their job voluntarily can still collect unemployment benefits if they did so with good cause. Each state interprets criteria for good cause differently. However, all states consider harassment, discrimination, and unsafe work conditions to be adequate reasons to receive unemployment benefits after quitting.

In this case, Ann Dooley fought to overturn her denial of unemployment benefits. Dooley worked as a securities class-action lawyer at Lite DePalma. Dooley asked her partner, Katrina Carroll, for assistance on filings with approaching deadlines. Katrina Carroll, who was on the last days of maternity leave, agreed to help. Dooley received approval for the assistance from her supervisor, Allyn Lite.

However, the firm’s managing member, Joseph DePalma became irritated that Dooley was receiving help from Carroll. “He entered appellant’s office and berated appellant for reaching out to an attorney on maternity leave.” Afterwards, Dooley visited DePalma’s office to speak to him, but he had not yet calmed down and asked her to leave.

Dooley was very distressed and believed she could no longer work with DePalma. When she consulted Allyn Lite about her possible resignation, he advised her to take more time to consider the decision. However, that night Dooley notified Carroll that she would be resigning. The next day she confirmed it with Allyn Lite.

Initially, Dooley was accepted to collect unemployment benefits. The firm later appealed her eligibility and she was disqualified for benefits by the Appeal Tribunal. Dooley then appealed and the case was taken to the Appellate Division.

Judges Jonathan Harris and John Kennedy upheld the denial of benefits stating the cause would have to be “so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave employment,” and that “on-the-job reprimands administered to claimant by her supervisor, while public and arguably improper and humiliating, are not so burdensome as to justify a claimant’s departure from the job.”

Dooley then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which declined to review the case.

Sylvia is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Gabrielle Francois.

I chose a business law article from the Wall Street Journal to review. The title of the article is Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death. The article explains the following; a brief explanation of the young man named Freddie Gray’s death, charges toward the police officers behind the death and the attorney’s defense against the charges.

Freddie Gray was a young twenty-five year old African-American male who was killed by six police officers in Baltimore, Maryland. Freddie experienced fatal spinal cord injuries while under custody. The six officers responsible are: Officers William Porter (25 years old), Lt. Brian Rice (41 years old), and Sgt. Alicia White (30 years old), Edward Nero (29 years old), Garrett Miller (26 years old), and Mr. Goodson (45 years old).

Officers William Porter, Lt. Brian Rice and Sgt. Alicia White were charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Edward Nero and Garrett Miller were charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Then lastly Mr. Goodson was charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and other charges.

After the charges were set into place Mike Davey, who is Lt. Rice’s attorney, spoke for all six officers. Mike Davey stated, “I have never seen such a hurried rush to deliver criminal charges,” said Mr. Davey, who appeared with Gene Ryan, president of the Baltimore police union. “We believe these officers will be vindicated as they have done nothing wrong.” (wallstreetjournal.com).

After resolving this situation so quickly, a few people have some concerns about this decision, while others (mainly African-American communities) praise this decision. Now, it is shocking for many to believe that the police are actually being punished for a crime unlike (what many believe) the rest in other states relating to African-American murders.

Gabrielle is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Nadia Haddad.

Throughout the article, “Intellectual Property,” the author Darren Dahl talks about four different common fallacies that small business is unaware. The two most precious resources for any small business owner are time and money. Small business owners believe that it is not worth the time or effort to secure intellectual property rights. A patent can cost up to $25,000 to secure, in comparison to trademarks and Web addresses, which are cheap and can be obtained with the help of a lawyer.

In one case, Daniel Lubetzky, chief executive of New York City, Kind Snacks, heard that one of his competitors had copied the packaging, look, and feel of his bars. Lubetzky had secured components for his property like trademarks, trade dress, and Web addresses after founding his company. Mr. Lubetzky sent a competitor that was stealing his IP a cease-and-desist letter in order to stop the offender.

The above example stresses the erroneous belief that “once I get a trademark, my brand is safe.” In another case, Tracey Deschaine, who runs a restaurant called Dixie Picnic in Ocean City, N.J., secured trademarks, logo and name of her signature item, cupcakes. Even though she had trademarks for her business, someone else was monitoring the activity on the United States Patents and Trademark Office’s website and her spotted her application. They secured the Web address, or URL, before she could. This shows that, just because you have a trademark, it does not mean you are completely protected.

The third topic mentioned was about how “having a patent gives me the right to produce something.” What a patent does is gives you the right to prevent someone else from producing what your patent covers. Mr. Kocher of Cryptography Research says, “having a strong IP position helps ensure that other pay you for your innovation like they would on a toll on a road.” (Dahl).

Another fallacy mentioned is “If I have a patent or trademark in the United States, I don’t need to worry about the rest of the world.” In some countries, like Japan, it is expensive to acquire patents. The author suggested when deciding what your international IP strategy should be, consult a lawyer, and conduct some cost-benefit analysis to see if expanding your IP rights makes proper sense.

The last fallacy the article states “people who collect patents but don’t actually make anything are ‘patent trolls.’” In many cases, companies invent something, obtain a patent, and license it out for manufacturing by another. An example described was how a patent for wireless e-mail delivery held by NTP, a small holding company, something that R.I.M eventually would pay millions of dollars to license from them. The problem with this was NTP was trying to enforce its patent when it did notmake any products itself from the beginning.

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