Law & Ethics Essay

BB cosmopolitan PartnershipDracca is able to seek recover from Silva Gray respectively on the judgment for BB compact because the partnership has non been incorporated. In a general partnership each individual can be sued for the overflowing amount of the business debt. The partners cannot harbour personal interest at heart the partnership (Bagley & angry, 2009 p. 729). If one partner incurs all of the debt, they can then sue the another(prenominal) partners for their parts of the debt. Within a Limited Liability Partnership these tierce items would differ from the general partnership. 1. Limited partners do not play an supple role in the business2. Limited partners argon not in person liable3. Limited partners face slightly different tax rules (NOLO) BB is not a formalized fellowship under the laws of corporation and taxation, so in turn each individual can be held liable for the debt legally. However, Dracca should not have gone after Ms. Grey solely on a tip of her wea lth.Business Judgment endureThe Business Judgment regularise states that as long as the board members have acted in honourable faith and meet the basic standards, there should not be a fear of prosecution when making decisions (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 801). To insure that the board of directors did not rift their responsibility of manage and the Business Judgment Rule several items must be analyzed.1. Were the directors interested in the transaction?2. Did the directors act in true faith? 3. Did the directors act in a manner that cannot be attributed to a rational purpose? 4. Did the directors reach the decision by a neglectful process? (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.801). The board must also consider their duty of superintend and duty of loyalty. Duty of cargon requires people involved in the company to make informed and reasonable decisions for the business. Duty of loyalty requires employees to act in good faith and in good interest of the company (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 7 99).In the case of Dracca vs. BB, the board did not act in good duty of care, duty of loyalty or use the Business Judgment Rule appropriately. The overall concept to obtain the debt from BB was an action of duty or care and loyalty to the company. However, the way the board of directors went about the retrieval of the debt was not the beaver method. By pursuing Ms. Gray off a tip the store back blast and the company incurred a lot of fees that might not of occurred if the pursue was plan correctly. The process of pursuing the money was neglected, fault number three in the Business Judgment rule.Employment DiscriminationThe accounting manager for Dracca overseeing the BB account, Martin recollective had his pay and responsibilities decreased by Accounting Director Mary smith. The suitable Employment fortune Commission (EEOC) was developed to help employees against discrimination of age, sex, race, sex, subject area origin, disability, and religion (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.46 6). In Martin Longs case he unexpended the company because Ms. Smiths visual and vocal opinions. The opinions turned into anguish and eventually Long left the Firm. By vocalizing and placing visual signs Ms. Smith was creating a harsh work environment for employees.Long will be able to sue Dracca for employment discrimination and argue constructive neglect because there must be evidence of unpleasant working presumption that it forces the employee to resign and the employer has not taken care of the commission within 15 days of being informed of the issues. The harassment must be worsened than backup VII (Runkel, n.d.). Dracca is responsible for Ms. Smiths actions/discrimination against Long. Kate was fired after reporting to the EEOC the harassment from Ms. Smith. Kate should not of been fired for reporting the discrimination. imputable to Draccas action upon firing Kate, the company seems to approve of Ms. Smiths actions. The EEOC Compliance Manual states that the person fil ing the complaint is protected against revenge by a respondent for participating in the statutory complaint proceedings even if that complaint involved a different cover entity (Igasaki, 1998).From the EEOC, Dracca would be held liable for Hernandezs actions within the court system. Hernandez violated the EEOC Title VII discriminatory actions. The Title VII makes two theories clear to businesses. 1. The surmise of disparate treatment and 2. The theory of disparate impact. disparate treatment substance that the plaintiff has to prove that the employer intentionally discriminated against him/her denying a benefit of employment (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.471). Disparate impact is when employers make employment decisions based on selection, making employers unadulterated test and evaluations.BFOQ stands for Bona Fide Occupational that an employer must prove that the type of person is not able to commit the job position. In this case, women with children were hired in guild to sell t he product. Dracca would have to prove that men were not able to perform the job. The BFOQ cannot be used as a defense when there is a preferred gender within the company. The spare-time activity also apply. Usually BFOQ is not based on color and gender will not determine when the 1. Assumptions of the comparative employment characteristics of women in general, 2. Stereotyped characteristics of the sexes, and 3. The preferences of coworkers, employers or customers for one gender or the other (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 485).ConclusionAfter reviewing the case, I recommend the following1. Dracca hire new board members with a focus on the business, and not a focus on money. The Board of Directors should be compiled of people that are business savvy and care about the firm and about the financials in a legal and ethical manner. By the Board leaning on a tip and not fact, the business incurred a lot of debt that could have been spent roughwhere else within the firm. 2. Dracca should hav e a firmer hiring process where the prospects are asked to observe and manage for a day, or write out a list of goals, or how to hire people for certain positions. This could show some speculation to discrimination. Also, Dracca should be stricter on company policy regarding religion, politics, and harassment. If need be the company can have classes on what is and is not harassment within the workplace. In this case, it seems that Dracca turned a blind eye on Mr. Long.ReferencesBagley, Savage (2009 Feb. 5). Managers and the Legal Environment Strategiesfor the 21st Century, Retrieved from http//online.vitalsource.com/books/1111439885/S3.2/25 Igasaki, P., (1998), The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Directives Transmittal, Retrieved from http//www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.htm Runkel, R. (n.d.), Constructive Discharge 9, Law Memo First in Employment Law. Retrieved from http//www.lawmemo.com/101/2005/12/constructive_di.html