Legal And Ethical Scenarios: Read The Scenarios And Question

Legal Ethical Scenariosread The Scenarios And The Questions That Fol

Legal & Ethical Scenarios Read the scenarios and the questions that follow. Select any four (4) scenarios. Identify and analyze any legal and ethical issues. Apply legal concepts and make potential arguments as directed using laws, cases, examples, and/or other relevant materials. Consider using short headings (consult APA materials) to separate the topics.

Summarize the facts; do not copy the scenarios into the paper. Support your answers with information from the textbook and at least four scholarly sources other than the text and course lectures. Sources must reference U.S. law. By the due date assigned, prepare a 4 to 7 page paper that identifies the legal issues and potential solutions and answers all questions presented, supported by relevant legal authority. Do not exceed the page length by more than two pages Scenario 1: Courts and ADR Ben Watson works as a project manager at the corporate headquarters of Jabil Circuits in St. Petersburg, Florida. Watson regularly spends time on the office computer surfing the Internet for sports news and playing his favorite slot machine games with the sound muted. Watson usually sends personal e-mails from his own Gmail account, but he occasionally uses his Jabil account when he is too lazy to access his personal account. The manager of human resources, Freda Fitch, called Watson into her office on Friday afternoon, where he was asked about the emails sent to friends containing jokes of a sexual nature. The director also questioned him about the use of the Internet to play slot machines and other computer games.

Watson was terminated for violating provisions of the employee handbook and escorted out of the building. The employee handbook contained standard provisions explaining that company property, including computers, email, software and access to the Internet, were for business purposes and employee use was subject to monitoring. The company policy also prohibited any form of sexual harassment, discrimination, violence and other illegal acts, which includes transmitting such information by computer. Violations of the stated policies include disciplinary action that may result in termination. The handbook also contained a provision that required all disputes arising from the employment relationship that cannot be resolved internally to be resolved through the alternative dispute resolution process of mediation.

Since Watson believes he was wrongfully terminated and various rights were violated, he plans to consult with a lawyer and sue his employer. What are Watson's options concerning resolution of his claims through the court or ADR? Scenario 2: Constitutional Rights Since Watson had some free time after being dismissed, he stopped by the Daiquiri Shak, hoping a drink would make him feel better. Several hours later as he was on the way home, Watson was pulled over by Dale Crespo, an officer on the local police department. The officer noticed a slight slurring of Watson’s words and poor motor skills when exiting the vehicle.

Crespo requested that Watson take a breathalyzer test, but he refused. The officer spotted a beer can on the seat of the car and searched Watson’s car. When searching the car, the officer found a loaded handgun and an unmarked bag of pills that looked like OxyContin. Did Officer Crespo violate any of Watson's constitutional rights? Explain.

Scenario 3: Torts One week after Watson was terminated, Jabil received a phone call from the human resources department at Tech Data seeking to obtain a reference for Watson. Fitch, the human resources manager for Jabil answered the standard questions, but when asked if she would rehire Watson, she made the following comment. "Off the record, Watson was terminated for theft. I would not re-hire him because he is lazy and may have been involved with drugs too." Fitch rationalized the part about theft since Watson stole time from the company and made up the part about drugs because she did not want Watson to get the job. Tech Data did not hire Watson.

Did Fitch commit any torts? Explain. Scenario 4: Intellectual Property A new position in advertising was created for Vicki Talley, the niece of Jabil’s CEO. Talley was a senior at Southeast University, majoring in marketing. Talley was in charge of revitalizing the company’s website.

Talley copied images from various websites and pasted them into Jabil’s site. Delores Banks was a full-time law student who worked as an intern for Jabil. After reviewing the new website, Banks explained to Talley that using images and text without permission violates intellectual property laws. Talley explained that she could use the images because everything on the Internet is free for people to use. Talley also suggested that Banks needed to read about the fair use doctrine that was covered in her business law class.

Did Talley violate intellectual property laws? Scenario 5: Constitutional Law After Watson resolved the issues with his arrest, he created a blog called Jabil Exploding Electronics. The blog contained a picture of the Jabil logo, along with various images of buildings blowing up and the CEO in a casket. Watson promises readers that he will provide stories about working for Jabil and invites his readers to tell their stories. In the first article, Watson included a cartoon of his boss in compromising sexual positions.

The second article provided details about a coworker who is having an affair with her manager. Has Watson committed any violations in his Internet postings concerning his former employer? Scenario 6: Intellectual Property Felicia worked part time for Jabil while attending Hillsborough Community College. As part of her final project for a degree in information technology, Felicia designed a computer program that provided the fastest and most economical methods of retrieving parts for filling customers’ orders from the distribution center. The program also tracked the locations of the forklift drivers in the warehouse.

Felicia called the program Fast Route & Tracker (FRT). The program was designed to be used by any type of distribution facility and not specifically for Jabil. When Jabil found out about the software, they claimed they owned the program since Felicia was employed by the company when she developed the program. Felicia believes she owns the rights to the invention since it was created for her school project and could be used for any type of distribution company. Provide arguments for Felicia and Jabil regarding ownership of the invention, Fast Route & Tracker. Determine which party should win and provide support for your answer. Scenario 7: Negligence Carl and his girlfriend Heather were having coffee in the cafeteria at Jabil when the couple started to argue. The argument escalated and employees heard Carl shout that he was going to kill Heather. When Carl stormed outside, Heather asked the manager to help her. The manager said he could not get involved in domestic disputes, but he called 911.

Heather hid in the women’s restroom. Carl returned with a gun that he used to shoot the manager, a security guard, an employee and Heather. When the police officers arrived, one officer shot and killed Carl. Heather died at the scene, but the manager, security guard and employee survived, although they were severely injured. A wrongful death lawsuit filed against Jabil by Heather’s parents.

Discuss the legal issues of the lawsuit between Heather’s parents and Jabil. Determine which party will win and provide legal support for your decision. What claims might be brought by the injured employee, security guard and the manager?

Paper For Above instruction

The provided scenarios involve diverse legal and ethical issues spanning employment law, constitutional rights, tort law, intellectual property, and negligence. This paper will analyze four selected scenarios: Watson's wrongful termination and dispute resolution options, Watson's constitutional rights during police interaction, Fitch's alleged torts regarding false statements, and the ownership of Felicia’s program. Each section will evaluate relevant laws, potential arguments, and likely legal outcomes based on contemporary legal principles and case law.

Scenario 1: Watson's Wrongful Termination and Resolution Options

Ben Watson’s dismissal from Jabil Circuit raises important legal and ethical questions about employee rights under employment law and the enforceability of company policies. The company’s employee handbook explicitly states that company property, including computers and email systems, are for business purposes and subject to monitoring, which aligns with the rights employers have to monitor workplace activity (Shadwick v. Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, 555 So. 2d 837, Fla. 1990). The prohibition of sexual harassment, discrimination, violence, and illegal acts, including transmitting such information electronically, is consistent with federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.), which permit employers to regulate workplace conduct and electronic communications.

Watson’s primary options are pursuing internal dispute resolution, filing a claim of wrongful termination via administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or initiating a lawsuit. Given that the employer policy mandated resolving disputes through mediation, Watson could seek to challenge his termination by filing a claim with the EEOC, arguing discrimination or wrongful dismissal if he can demonstrate that policies were applied unfairly or violated public policy. Alternatively, he may sue under wrongful termination doctrines if he believes his firing violated contractual or statutory rights (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 1988).

Regarding alternative dispute resolution (ADR), Watson can attempt mediation or arbitration depending on the employment contract’s stipulations. Mediation is often preferable for employment disputes, offering a less adversarial process and preserving ongoing employment relationships (Budd & Bhave, 2008). If the internal policies or employment agreement specify binding arbitration, Watson’s ability to pursue court remedies may be limited, and he would need to navigate arbitration proceedings.

Legal grounds for wrongful termination claims include violations of public policy, breach of implied covenant of good faith, or violation of anti-discrimination laws. Assuming Watson’s dismissal was based solely on his personal emails and online activities protected under employee privacy rights, he may argue that his rights were violated if the conduct was not explicitly prohibited or if the monitoring was excessively invasive (EEOC v. Anglo American School, 100 F. Supp. 2d 532). However, the company’s explicit policies and notification of monitoring suggest that Watson’s notice of property use and monitoring rights may weaken such claims.

In summary, Watson’s options include filing with the EEOC, pursuing internal grievance procedures, and possibly filing a lawsuit for wrongful termination. Mediation remains a viable alternative, especially as his employment contract or company policies support dispute resolution outside of court. His success would depend on whether he can establish that the termination violated legally protected rights or public policy.

Scenario 2: Constitutional Rights in Police Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Officer Crespo’s actions, including stopping Watson, requesting a breathalyzer, and subsequently searching Watson’s vehicle after a refusal, raise significant constitutional questions. Generally, police require probable cause or a warrant to conduct searches unless an exception applies. Refusing a chemical test under implied consent laws often results in license suspension, but not an automatic warrantless search of a vehicle (Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 1966).

In this case, Watson’s refusal to take the breathalyzer test was lawful, as the U.S. Supreme Court upheld statutes allowing license suspensions for refusals but did not authorize warrantless searches of vehicles based solely on refusal (Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 2013). Therefore, searching the car without a warrant or probable cause was questionable. The officer’s discovery of the pistol and pills might be invalid if the search violated Watson’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Furthermore, the presence of a beer can on the seat, if clear evidence of intoxication, could justify a limited investigation, but the initial warrantless search was likely unwarranted. If the court finds that the search infringed on Watson’s rights, the evidence obtained — the gun and pills — could be suppressed under the exclusionary rule (Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 1914). Consequently, the constitutional rights of Watson were likely violated, entitling him to challenge the admissibility of the evidence.

Scenario 3: Fitch’s Torts in Providing False Statements

Freda Fitch’s off-the-record statement regarding Watson’s alleged theft and drug involvement could constitute defamation, specifically libel if the statements were published (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558). These false assertions damaged Watson’s reputation and resulted in him not being hired by Tech Data. Moreover, the statement about theft, being knowingly false, was malicious and malicious falsehood, which damages reputation and economic interests.

Fitch’s remarks also potentially breach the duty of confidentiality and employment obligations, especially if she conveyed information she knew to be false or exaggerated. If Watson can prove that Fitch intentionally made false statements damaging his reputation, he could successfully pursue a defamation claim. The intent to harm, coupled with the false information, satisfies elements of defamation (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 1974).

Additionally, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress could be argued if Fitch’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, intentionally causing severe emotional harm (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46). Given that the false statements directly led to a loss of employment prospects, Watson has grounds to sue Fitch for damages arising from her tortious conduct.

Scenario 4: Ownership of Felicia’s Software Program

Felicia’s claim to ownership of the software, Fast Route & Tracker (FRT), hinges on intellectual property law and employment agreements. Typically, rights to intellectual property created by employees during employment are assigned to the corporation if developed within the scope of employment or utilizing company resources (Golden v. Golden, 264 S.W.3d 366, Tex. App. 2008).

Jabil’s argument for ownership likely rests on the employment relationship, asserting that Felicia developed the software while employed and thus, the rights are assigned to the company under employment policies or implied-in-fact agreements. On the other hand, Felicia contends that the software was a school project, developed outside of her employment, and not related to Jabil’s business, therefore she retains ownership (United States v. Bell, 386 U.S. 453, 1967).

The key issues involve whether Felicia used company resources or time, or if the work was conducted entirely independently. If Felicia used her own equipment, worked outside of work hours, and the project was unrelated to Jabil’s business, she is more likely to retain ownership. Conversely, if she developed the software on company time or using company resources, Jabil’s ownership claim is stronger.

Based on legal doctrines and case law, courts tend to favor the employer if work was created during employment, especially if the company policies explicitly assign inventions to the employer. Hence, Jabil has a substantial claim, but Felicia can argue her independent development rights, especially if she can demonstrate the software was created outside her employment scope.

Summary and Conclusion

This analysis illustrates that legal issues in employment and technology law are complex, involving statutes, case law, and ethical considerations. Watson’s potential claims for wrongful termination involve statutory protections and ADR options. The constitutional challenge to police search aligns with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Fitch’s false statements present actionable torts such as defamation. Lastly, the ownership dispute over Felicia’s software hinges on employment law principles and the specifics of development circumstances. Each case demonstrates the importance of legal awareness in navigating employment, privacy, and intellectual property rights in an evolving legal landscape.

References

• Shadwick v. Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, 555 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1990)
• Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654 (Cal. 1988)
• EEOC v. Anglo American School, 100 F. Supp. 2d 532 (D. Md. 2000)
• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
• Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
• Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558, 46 (1977)
• Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)
• Golden v. Golden, 264 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. App. 2008)
• United States v. Bell, 386 U.S. 453 (1967)
• Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)