Posted by Marissa Aniolowski.

These two articles both address the same issue that occur in two different companies. This issue is sexual discrimination. In the first article, a woman accuses AutoNation of promoting a male over her solely because she is a female. The second article, addresses the issue of gender pay in the company Oracle.  As a female business student, I am concerned about being a woman in the business world because of issues like these.

In the first article, Jaqueline de la Torre filed a complaint about AutoNation because when the Parts Manager position opened up, AutoNation immediately hired a male despite the fact that they had a female Assistant Parts Manager who had been on the job for 10 years and was more than qualified to be promoted. According to De la Torre she was told they “needed a man” for the position, and she was then required to teach the new Parts Manager how to do his job because he was previously a sales associate at the dealership. Because the company failed to promote her, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing AutoNation for violating Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a female, I would defend De la Torre’s side because I know women are just as capable as men are. It is a difficult accusation to prove, but women are undermined in the work world, and that needs to change.

In the second article, three women in the senior product development role are accusing Oracle of paying their male colleagues in the same position more money. The article states, “It’s the third time this year that Oracle has been in the news around pay discrimination. In January, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Oracle claiming the company systematically pays its white male workers more than women, and men of color.” The women’s lawyer is still searching for evidence to support their claim, but their lawyer, “says he wants to file a class action lawsuit that would cover some 1,200 women at Oracle.” How you prove the company is paying the white men more money than the rest of the workers based solely on their gender and color is a difficult task to prove, but why issues like this are still occurring is concerning. How long will it take people to realize that men, women, and people of different races are all capable of doing the same work, and the diversity will only help companies grow?

In many businesses, discrimination is still currently a big issue. It is an issue nationwide, outside the business realm that needs to be fixed, and should no longer be tolerated. The issues with these cases is finding enough evidence to support the claims and prove that they have been discriminate. The great strides that have been made to equality of race and gender are not something to ignore, but in today’s day and age, any person should not tolerate discrimination.

Marissa is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

EEOC sues AutoNation for alleged sex discrimination

https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2017/10/02/eeoc-sues-autonation-for-alleged-sex.html

Oracle faces possible class-action lawsuit over gender pay discrimination

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/10/02/oracle-gender-pay-discrimination-lawsuit-orcl-goog.html

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 Kimberly McNamara.

The idea of pensions have been around for nearly 100 years. Detroit, a city that recently filed for bankruptcy, is now facing more monetary concerns, and many are looking for someone to blame. According to The New York Times, the city of “Detroit has been a client of Gabriel Roeder since 1938, when the city first started offering pensions. Now the city is bankrupt, the pension fund is short, benefits are being cut . . . .” Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company is a widely known, consultant and actuary firm dealing mostly with pension plans. This company was hired by the city of Detroit to calculate the amount of money coming in versus the amount of money needed for current and future pension pay-outs.

Many Detroit pension holders are now filing lawsuits against Gabriel Roeder. There are three current cases against Gabriel Roeder: one by members of Detroit’s police and firefighting force, another by Wayne County, and Ms. Estes, a citizen and pension holder in Detroit.

Now Ms. Estes has lost not only part of her pension but much of the savings tied up in her house, while she and her neighbors overpay for paltry city services. She says she might have been spared some of the misery had Gabriel Roeder warned the trustees years ago that the pension system was unsustainable and recommended changes.

Ms. Estes is just one of many who have been put in this situation created by poor business decisions. She was also told that, “she would have to forfeit $25,000 when she reaches retirement age . . . .” There are a multitude of people who had depended on their pension for retirement and simply will never see it.

Unfortunately, Gabriel Roeder would not exceptaccept the advice of other firms including government agencies like the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (G.A.S.B.). If they had, maybe Detroit’s bankruptcy situation would be different and quite possibly there would be no lawsuits being brought againstto Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company.   The firm said they “would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuits,” but lets wait and see how well that holds up in court.

Kimberly is a business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called, “Lawsuits and Consumer Reporters Fight Home Warranty Companies,” Heidi Turner discusses how home warranty companies are being sued by consumers. An investigative reporter was asked to look into a company called Sensible Home Warranty who was allegedly selling consumers a warranty policy. However, when one consumer asked for a new microwave, Sensible Home warranty refused to pay out her claim. While investigating the company, a reporter name Michelle Mortensen found that Sensible Home Warranty has more than 1,950 complaints. In the article it states, “An investigation into the company was undertaken by the Nevada Division of Insurance but in the meantime, the company reportedly went out of business.”

Due to the fact that the company was mistreating their consumers and taking advantage of their money, the company was fined $5,000 dollars for not complying with the state’s Service Warranty Act. In the article it further states, “The business failed to pay legitimate claims made on home warranty contracts sold in the State of Utah, or to pay them in a timely manner, and the business failed to respond to inquiries of the commissioner.”

Since many other home warranty companies have been taking advantage of other consumers, lawsuits have been filed against them.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Matthew Rachek.

One of the biggest issues that industries of all kinds deal with constantly is being able to filter out counterfeits from their marketplace. Counterfeits and other forms of knock-offs are not good for the market because they drive profits away from those that deserve the reward and often times fund criminal organizations.

The music industry has dealt with counterfeits since its existence. With the continued growth of technology and new ways for consumers to listen to their favorite artists, it has become harder and harder for the in the industry to regulate how the money is coming in. In fact often times, counterfeit CDs or knock-off streaming services do not compensate the artist at all.

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2016, it explained how these music “pirates” have been flooding online retailers such as Amazon.com, “with counterfeit CDs that often cost nearly as much as the official versions and increasingly are difficult to distinguish from the real goods.”

The good news is that Amazon.com has recognized the problem an is making the right ethical decision by making sure that their stakeholders all receive the product they are expecting to receive at checkout. By doing this they are also trying to ensure that the artist and producer of the music receive proper compensation for their work so that the money does not make its way into the hands of the music pirates.

In a statement released by Amazon.com they wrote, “We are constantly innovating….to improve the ways we detect and prevent counterfeit products from reaching our marketplace. We work hard on this issue every day….” One of the ways they ensure that customers, a stakeholder, is satisfied with their product is by offering refunds for any product that is not as advertised. While this may initially hurt Amazon.com’s bottom line this is an essential moral decision because in the long-run consumers will be more likely to trust Amazon.com and buy other products off the site.

As technology continues to find new innovations it is almost certain that counterfeits and pirates will new be completely taken out of the market place, especially in the music industry. However it is very reassuring for a large company like Amazon to take nope of the issue and try to take steps to solve the issue.

Matthew is an accounting student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-struggling-to-keep-counterfeits-off-market-retailer-says/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/boost-in-online-pirated-cd-sales-deal-another-blow-to-music-industry-1477867243

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 Ashley Scales.

On February 22, 2018, Palantir was ordered to open their books to an investor who was seeking U.S. fraud probe.  The judge ruled, “Data analytics and security company Palantir Technologies Inc. must open its books to early investor Marc Abramowitz.”  Abramowitz wants to investigate possible fraud and misconduct at the esteemed private U.S. Company.  He sued the firm after a 2015 falling out with the company’s chief executive officer, Alexander Karp.  The lawsuit claims that Palantir prevented Abramowitz as well as many others from selling their stock in the privately owned company, while allowing sales by Karp and Chairman Peter Thiel.

Judge Joseph Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery said that Abramowitz showed “a proper purpose of investigating potential wrongdoing and a credible basis to justify further investigation.”

Through the KT4 Partners LLC fund he manages, Abramowitz invested an initial $100,000 in Palantir in 2003.  According to Judge Slights’ 50-page opinion, Abramowitz’s investment is now estimated to be worth about $60 million.

Abramowitz and Karp had a close relationship until their falling out in 2015.  Karp “verbally abused” Abramowitz and accused him of taking intellectual property from the company.  Soon after their falling out, Abramowitz tried to sell his stock in Palantir, but he claimed that the company blocked the deal by making an offer of newly issued stock to the potential buyer.  According to Slights, Abramowitz began pursuing information from Palantir while he considered suing the company for blocking the sale of his stock.  In September 2016, in response to the potential claim against the company, Palantir sued Abramowitz for supposedly stealing trade secrets.  In a comment, Palanti said that they plan to continue to pursue their case against Abramowitz.

Abramowitz brought his case to Delaware in March 2017.  Palantir claimed that Abramowitz “should be denied information because he was likely to use it to build his lawsuit over the blocked sale”.  Judge Slights ruled, “Abramowitz could investigate Palantir’s lack of annual meetings, corporate amendments that limited KT4’s rights and the company’s sales of stock”.  However, Abramowitz would not be allowed to investigation Palantir’s value or Karp’s compensation.

Ashley is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

There are two sides of every story. According to Kelly Wallace who works for CNN, “It’s a case of she said versus they said.”

Rachael Cunnings, a young girl from New Jersey, accused her parents of throwing her out of their house when she turned eighteen. They refused to pay for her private school tuition, and so she sued them for expected future expenses, such as transportation, bills, college tuition, and living expenses.   The teen’s parents argue “that she was not kicked out of the house. Instead, they say she left on her own back in October because she didn’t want to abide by their rules.” There were many claims against each side, such as Rachael’s parents not liking her boyfriend, missing curfews, getting suspended, and apparently the teen’s parents were abusive.

The judge in the New Jersey Superior Court denied Cunnings request for high school tuition and living expenses. “The judge sounded skeptical of some of the claims in the lawsuit, saying it could lead to teens ‘thumbing their noses’ at their parents, leaving home and then asking for financial support.” There was another hearing that took place the following month about other issues in the case including her college expenses. Before the hearing, Rachael dropped the case; she was accepted by Western New England University with a $56,000 scholarship. In the end, the teen did not end up empty handed.

Deena is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Mario Damasceno.

In mid-February of 2015, federal prosecutors investigated United Airlines and its close relation with then chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, David Samson. The investigation arose shortly after Samson’s resignation, resulting from emails released that showed aids to Governor Chris Christie had intentionally organized lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. This is particularly significant because during his time in office, Samson would spend his weekends in Aiken, SC, which was located 50 miles from the Columbia, South Carolina airport, however, United never initially offered that route from its New Jersey hub.

The New Jersey paper known as the Record reported, “Federal aviation records show that during the 19 months United offered the non-stop service, the 50-seat planes that flew the route were, on average, only about half full,” and “was reportedly money-losing,” (The Economist). This, in turn, lead to the route being named, “The Chairman’s Flight.” The route itself “left United Airlines’ Newark hub each Thursday night bound for Columbia, S.C. On Monday mornings, United Express flew back to Newark,” (Bloomberg Business). Furthermore, federal prosecutors argued that, not by coincidence, “United cancelled the flight on April 1st, 2014—just three days after Mr. Samson resigned from the Port Authority” (The Economist).

The entire situation is worth looking into, and in fact, the Port Authority along with United Airlines have been issued subpoenas examining the communication between David Samson and the airline. Mary Schiavo, a former federal prosecutor and Department of Transportation inspector general stated, “If United realized they were offering this flight to curry favor with a public official, then United’s in the soup—it’s a bribe,” (Bloomberg).

Mario is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Bachman, Justin. “Did United Put a Whole Route in the Sky for One Very Important Passenger?” Bloomberg Business. N.p., 25 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. .

Gulliver. “The Chairman’s Flight.” The Economist. N.p., 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. .

“United Airlines: The Chairman’s Flight.” Reinventing the Company 12 Sept. 2015: n. pag. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. .

Posted by Johnny A. Guerrero.

This article was published by the New York Times on 26 November 2017 and was written by Stacy Cowley.  The article illuminates the tension between a high-ranking government civil service official, Ms. Leandra English, and the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump.  To further understand this dilemma, one has to first comprehend what is “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and what do they do.  For starters, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “was created six years ago to oversee a wide variety of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and student loans” (Cowley).  With this in mind, one can say that the bureau was a regulator created in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that hit the New York Stock Market Exchange harshly.  The “Regulatory Agency,” also referred to as (CFPB) was created by the Obama Administration to protect consumers from the tyrants of Wall Street.  Thus, the agency is charged with overseeing financial products and services, as noted.

The tension raised because Ms. English, the deputy director of the bureau, was not willing to step down from her post because she believed that the President could not fire or replace her.  So, she “filed a lawsuit late Sunday night on 26 November 2017 to block Mr. Trump’s choice of someone else from taking control of the agency on Monday morning, 27 November 2017” (Cowley).  Ms. English was defending her cause because Congress gave the agency infrequent independency and autonomy to protect it from political interference.  Thus, the bureau’s director “is one of the few federal officials the President cannot fire at will” (Cowley).  However, the President nominates the agency’s director, who is subject to the approval and confirmation of the United States Senate.  Ms. English was not nominated by former President Obama; she was appointed director by the agency itself because the director, Mr. Richard Cordray, brusquely stepped down on Friday 24 November 2017.

To add more fire to the already burning wood, Ms. English, a seasoned agency veteran who rose progressively through the agency’s ranks, was being replace by Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s budget director.  Paradoxically, Trump wanted someone who saw the bureau as “sad, sick, a joke” (Cowley), and who openly supported legislation to eliminate it, as the agency’s new director.  Ethically this is not right.  Why appoint someone who speaks harshly about the agency to be its head?  Mulvaney, a white-collar professional, many believed would undo what the bureau had achieved since its conception, which was to protect consumers from the abusive debt collectors and politics of Wall Street Financiers.  This notion becomes eloquent with Senator Dick Durbin’s, a Democrat from Illinois, metaphor: “Wall Street hates it (the Agency) like the devil hates holy water” (Battle for Control of Consumer Agency Heads to Court, New York Times Article).

However, even though one may think that the President’s choice is ludicrous, he as the Head of the United States Government has the authority to appoint whoever he wants as the head of any Federal Government Agency.  Ms. English did not have the grounds to veto the President’s decision; after all the actual director, Mr. Cordray, was the one who resigned.  Therefore, it is the President’s duty to appoint a new head leader for the agency.  The law regarding Presidential Nominees is clear, “not grey.”  One must hope that Mr. Mulvaney does a good job protecting the American People from the Wall Street Tyrants, as he swore to do.

Johnny is in the dual B.A/M.B.A program at the College of Arts and Sciences (political science, minor in history) and the Stillman School of Business (management and finance), Seton Hall University, Classes of 2018 and 2019.

Source:

Posted by Michael Cappelluti.

It is no surprise that our society is on the brink of a technological revolution. It is projected that “65% of elementary school students will hold jobs that do not exist yet when they enter the workforce” (Frank Diana). By 2029, Ray Kurzweil predicts we will have technology that will allow us to live forever. While these technologies may benefit us, our society will be forced to react to these changes. Ethics and law will be crucial in making these reactions a reality. A more pressing issue, though, is the introduction of autonomous vehicles on the road. The article, “Law & the Problem of Autonomous Cars” by Nicholas Stringfellow, offers a legal perspective on the implications of this new technology.

Autonomous vehicles will disrupt many aspects of law, but the article starts off by discussing statutory law. Stringfellow believes that the state and federal levels of government will have to create a body of law about self driving cars—specifically about what happens when the “autopilot system” fails and the passengers are forced to disengage the autopilot and take control. Four states currently have a statutory law for autonomous vehicles, but they differ in some ways. Some states require a person to sit in the driver’s seat in case something were to go wrong, whereas some are more lax about an “emergency driver.” A huge ethical issue will be whether the car is programmed to defend the passengers at all cost, or, from a utilitarian standpoint, make whatever decision will save the most lives in the scenario.

The article also goes on to discuss Tort law, specifically, products liability law. “Injured persons could bring manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, or breach of warranty claims [to a court]” in the instance of an accident (Stringfellow). Courts will be forced to respond by “adopting a negligence standard, a strict liability standard, or by refusing to impose liability on carmakers.” Essentially, if a car is programmed to protect the most amount of lives in a situation—what happens? For example, if a car spins out of control onto the sidewalk to avoid a fatal accident pile-up on the road ahead, will the pedestrians killed by the disoriented car be able to file a law suit? These questions are unknown, at this point. This topic will be heavily discussed by futurists, ethical analysists, and lawyers in the near future—and this will pave way to the future of how we transport ourselves as human beings.

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