305010001 |ETP | |Business Policy | |Spring Semester‚ 2009 | |3 credit hours
Premium Strategic management
1. Can you (or Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor) search Yourprop’s personal vehicle currently parked in the Company parking lot for digital evidence? Support your answer. a. Pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution‚ Mr. Yourprop and all other employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would prevent me and his supervisor from freely searching his vehicle. The easiest and most efficient way that would prevent questions of immiscibility in court and protect the company from legal
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police
Name: Lei Chen Course : ACCT 362W Prof: Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date: 11/4/2010 Case Caption: United States v. Dentsply International‚ Inc.‚ Court: United States of Appeals‚ Third Circuit. Date: Argued September 21‚ 2004. February 24‚ 2005 Citation: 399 F.3d 181 Facts: This is an antitrust case that the defendant- Dentsply international‚ Inc.‚ is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial teeth for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates
Premium United States Competition law Competition
John D.R. Leonard v. PepsiCo‚ INC. 1. (a)What are the facts and (b) sources of law in this case? a. Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle‚ Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion‚ titled "Pepsi Stuff‚" attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign‚ PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the Pepsi Generation‚’ in order to gain
Premium Contract
Case Analyses March 12‚ 2012 Burlington Industries‚ Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998) I. FACTS: Kimberly Ellerth quit her job as a sales person at Burlington Industries after working there for 15 months. Her reasoning was that her supervisor‚ Ted Slowik‚ was sexually harassing her. Ellerth did not inform any other supervisors‚ and therefore the company was unaware of Slowik’s actions with Ellerth. Despite her refusals with Slowik’s advances‚ Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation
Premium Employment Appeal Lawyer
Question 1 We believe that Ms Stark should not revise her recommendation regarding FPL. The HOLD recommendation seems to be the most appropriate. Our judgement assumes a dividend cut from FPL. However‚ this dividend cut would be a precise strategic choice rather than one dictated by financing difficulties. Specifically‚ the dividend cut will raise future growth‚ with little effect on the stock price. By cutting dividends‚ FPL can react better to future threats. After an initial panic selling triggered
Premium Management Marketing Education
PGA TOUR‚ INC. V. MARTIN (2000) A brief overview of the case: Should a golfer with a congenital leg disease have the right to use a golf cart in professional golf tournaments? In the case of PGA Tour‚ Inc. v. Martin (2000)‚ the justices of the US Supreme Court disagreed. Their disagreement turned in part on competing views about whether walking the course is essential to the game of golf. To what extent does the debate about using golf carts call into question the athletic nature of golf and the
Premium Golf
Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. The plaintiff‚ who is 63 years old‚ brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer‚ J.C. Penney‚ after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company ’s Moosic‚ Pennsylvania Customer Service Center. She alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She brought these claims against both
Premium Discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Employment
BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY‚ INC. 134 S. Ct 2751 (US 2014) SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES Facts: Hobby Lobby is a family owned arts and crafts store that runs on Christian principles. The companies statement of purpose is “honoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The family does not believe in the use of contraception but under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)‚ the company is required to offer a minimum coverage
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States
UVA-F-1188 DELTA BEVERAGE GROUP‚ INC. It was July 1994‚ and John Bierbaum‚ chief financial officer (CFO) of Delta Beverage Group‚ Inc.‚ sat at his desk at the company’s headquarters in Memphis‚ Tennessee. As he considered the company’s promising future‚ he reflected on how close Delta had come to bankruptcy a couple of years earlier. In the last six years‚ the group had managed to turn around operations‚ and recently it had been on a buying spree and had acquired significant new franchises
Premium Futures contract Cash flow Debt