Law & Ethics Essay

BB General PartnershipDracca is able to seek recover from Silva Gray privately on the judgment for BB union because the partnership has non been incorporated. In a general partnership each individual can be fulfilld for the full amount of the business debt. The partners cannot seduce personal interest within the partnership (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 729). If one partner incurs all of the debt, they can then sue the other partners for their parts of the debt. Within a peculiar(a) Liability Partnership these three items would take issue from the general partnership. 1. Limited partners do not play an active role in the business2. Limited partners are not personally liable3. Limited partners face slightly different tax rules (NOLO) BB is not a formalized company 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 wealth.Business Judgment shapeThe Business Judgment Rule states that as long as the board members have acted in good assent 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 fault their obligation of care and the Business Judgment Rule several(prenominal) items must be analyzed.1. Were the directors interested in the transaction?2. Did the directors act in good 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 negligent process? (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.801). The board must also consider their duty of care and duty of loyalty. Duty of care 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. 799).In the case of Dracca vs. BB, the board did not a ct 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 astir(predicate) the retrieval of the debt was not the best method. By pursuing Ms. Gray off a tip the fund backfired and the company incurred a lot of fees that might not of occurred if the pursue was planned correctly. The process of pursuing the money was neglected, fault number three in the Business Judgment rule.Employment DiscriminationThe accounting tutor for Dracca overseeing the BB account, Martin Long had his pay and responsibilities decreased by Accounting Director Mary smith. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was developed to help employees against discrimination of age, sex, race, gender, field origin, disability, and religion (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p.466). In Martin Longs case he left the company because Ms. Smit hs visual and vocal opinions. The opinions turned into harassment and last 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 discharge because there must be evidence of unpleasant working condition that it forces the employee to resign and the employer has not taken care of the complaint within 15 days of being informed of the issues. The harassment must be worse than act 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. Due to Draccas action upon firing Kate, the company seems to esteem of Ms. Smiths actions. The EEOC Compliance Manual states that the person filing the complaint is protected against retaliation by a respondent for participating i n the statutory complaint proceedings even if that complaint involved a different covered 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 theory of disparate treatment and 2. The theory of disparate impact. Disparate treatment means that the plaintiff has to splay 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 complete test and evaluations.BFOQ stands for Bona Fide occupational that an employer must prove that the type of person is not able to perform the job position. In this case, women with children were hired in order to sell the product. Dracca would have to prove that men were not able to perform the job. The BFOQ can not be used as a defense when there is a preferred gender within the company. The pursual also apply. Usually BFOQ is not based on color and gender will not qualify 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 spend somewhere else within the firm. 2. Dracca should have a firmer hiring process where the prospects are asked to observe and manage for a day, or write out a list o f 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