Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course Title:
Date:
Law, Ethics and Corp Governance: Questions 1 and 2 and Case Study
Explain whether Jake’s actions are in or out of “his scope of employment.”
Jake’s actions are out his scope of employment. Jake seems to be aware of all that entails employee rights and compensation. It is within the legal right that he should be compensated for working overtime. However, Jake is using the fact that he was injured to blackmail Herman into paying him overtime. This is despite the fact that he has just been promoted and he earns a salary in addition to other benefits while the other workers are paid on commission. It seem like he inflicted the injuries on himself as a way of seeking compensation. He took on tasks that he had not been asked to do and he incurred the injuries when carrying out the tasks.
Explain whether or not Herman is responsible for Jake’s injury
Herman is not responsible for Jake’s injury since Jake was out his scope of employment. The only responsibility that Herman had assigned to Jake was changing the oil. Jake on the other hand went ahead and he did more than was required of him, and it is possible that he acquired the injury as he was performing the other tasks. Although he was doing a commendable job with the cars, Herman had not asked him to check the brakes, tires or the transmission. When Herman asked him why he had decided to do that, Jake replied that it was his decision. Jake has worked in the industry for a long time and he is aware of all the dangers involved. He actually knows more than Herman does and he cannot therefore claim that he did not receive any warning concerning the danger of using some of the work tools. On the other hand, Herman has a responsibility of ensuring that the work place environment is safe and in cases of injury, he should know what to do to make sure that the injuries do not get worse (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009).
Explain whether or not Jake should be paid the overtime
Some states such as California require that employees should be paid overtime regardless of whether the hours they have worked are authorized. Although the law requires that employees should be paid overtime, there are a few exemptions. For instance, executives and administrators who earn a salary are not entitled to overtime. Herman points out that Jake has been promoted to a service manager and is part of the rally team and he is therefore not eligible for overtime. Most of the employees who are paid on a salary basis are not usually entitled to overtime. Since Jake is paid on a salary basis, it means that he receives an already determined amount of money each payment period. The US department of Labor provides that drivers, loaders, mechanics and divers assistants are exempt from overtime if they are employed by a motor carrier, or if the duties they perform will affect vehicle safety when transporting passengers or property. Jake is therefore not entitled to overtime because he is a mechanic and he works in a motor carrier.
Explain the rights Jake and Herman have individually in this scenario
Although different states have different laws concerning employee compensation, they do recognize that employers also have rights (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009). Employees are entitled to work injury compensation when they are injured while working. They have a right to work in a risk free environment. Employers should make sure that they provide an environment that is safe for the employees. They should take all the necessary precautions to ensure that the employees are not in danger and in case something harmful happens, then they are well capable of handling it. In this case, Herman does not seem to have provided a risk free environment for Jake to work in, and he does not take any measures to deal with his injuries. There seems to be no mechanism for dealing with work place injuries. Employees have a duty towards their employers in that they are expected to perform their duties accordingly and ensure that things run smoothly at the work place. Herman is annoyed that Jake has added more responsibility on himself and he is not completing the immediate task. Because of this, all other operations are slowed down and this ultimately affects productivity.
1(a) explain what, according to Locke, gives a person their right to property
According to Locke, every man has his own property and no one else is entitled to this property. Locke believes that what a person works for belongs to him; thus, a person has a right to his own self, the earth, and to the fruits of nature. Locke is of the opinion that people gain their own property when they use the provisions of nature. He states, “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
1(b) Identify any limitation on the right to own property
People do not feel secure owning property since they realize that not everybody practices justice and fairness. Locke believes that anyone can make property by working but only if this does not limit another person from making property. Locke advices that people should not let what they have or own go to waste and if this is done, there will be plenty of land for everybody. Since Locke believes that labor entitles one to property, then so long as a person will work, then he or she will have property. If the person fails to work, it means that he or she will not acquire property. Locke identifies labor in terms of the menial work that people did back then such as fishing and picking fruit. This left no place for those who bought land (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009).
1(c) Discuss why Locke believes people form government
According to Locke, people give the government power to rule. He believes that the formed government should protect people’s property. Since people give the consent to form governments, they can always choose to replace the non-performing governments. Locke believed that there should be an individual with the power to implement the law for the sake of protecting the innocent and making sure that the offenders are restrained. Locke believed that everybody was equal and no one was subject to another and therefore anyone could restrain the one who did wrong.
2.(a) The image of David Lucas that emerges from majority Justice Scalia’s description is strikingly different from the one that Justice Blackman creates in his dissent. Identify the two contrasting stories in this case.
Lucas had bought the property he intended to build and it was therefore his property. The state was however concerned with the fact that it would cause environmental damage and they therefore opposed any building development on the site (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009). Justice Blackman identified Lucas as a businessperson whose role was that of development. He saw him as one who was not concerned with the environment despite hearing all that the development would do to it. Justice Scalia saw Lucas’ idea as an investment opportunity rather than a danger to the environment. He saw Lucas as the victim and he felt strongly that he was to be compensated. He did not seem as concerned concerning environmental issues as justice Scalia was.
2(b) Explain why you think that when Lucas bought the land at issue, in 1986, he did or did not have reason to know that by building on it he would be the owner of a “pig in a parlor.”
The Coastal Zone Management Act was established in the early seventies and it was aimed at protecting the coastal regions. The state passed legislation requiring that anyone who wished to develop in the coastal regions should obtain a permit from the South Carolina Coastal Council. The other developers in the area had already built the family rooms that Lucas intended to build. Lucas was not aware that he had to ask for a permit since the two plots of land were not classified as critical areas.
2(c) Discuss the two types of regulatory action that, according to the majority, automatically triggers compensation as takings, without a court needing to examine the circumstances in a case-specific manner
According to the Fifth Amendment, individuals whose property is taken are entitled to just compensation. One of the regulatory actions that the court identified was that the property owner suffered a physical invasion on his property. According to the court, the extent at which the council had invaded the property was not important, and neither was their reason for invading it. The other regulatory action was that the set regulation denied the owner the chance to utilize the lots economically. The land was valueless and it could not benefit the owner economically. When an individual is not able to make good use of his or her land economically because of the established regulation, the Fifth Amendment is violated.
references
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2009). Law & ethics in the business environment: 2010 custom
edition (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]