California Business Law Case Study

Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

In this memo I will be providing employment law compliance plan for Marylee Luther, a human resources director who is preparing Clapton Commercial Construction for an expansion. Clapton Commercial Construction is currently located in Michigan with 650 employees and looking to expand to Arizona with an employee growth of 20% in the new location. This memo will provide a complete description about the employment laws and how they are applicable to Clapton Commercial Construction expansion. I will also briefly discuss the possible penalties and consequences for non-compliance with these laws. There are five laws in particular that I believe to be most applicable to Clapton Commercial Construction which I will be address in this memo. The five laws are:

A bill-and-hold transaction is when the seller bills the customers for a product and records it as revenue, but does not ship the product to the customer until a later date. FASB states that revenue can not be recognized until the product is shipped to the final customer. Kelly Electronics will be receiving the products by March 31, 2017, but the final customer, Victor Systems will not, so under FASB, revenue should not be recognized until the goods are shipped to Victor Systems. The SEC also has certain criteria that needs to be met before South City Electronics can recognize this revenue. A few of these criteria’s are: “the risks of ownership must have passed to the buyer”, “the buyer, not the seller, must request the transaction be on

BIS did not breach duty of care because according to "N.Y. GOB. LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers"  10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both.

1) Patty owned Patty’s Cakes in Jacksonville, Florida. She sold her business to Fruity’s, Inc. a national pastry company. There was a non-compete agreement in the contract for the sale of her business. In the non-compete, Patty agreed not to work in any capacity in the food industry for 10 years on the entire east coast. A court would likely determine that the non-compete agreement

Michigan has adopted the Antitrust Reform Act. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.774a. The Act allows employers to obtain agreements , protecting their reasonable competitive business interests by prohibiting employment with competitors. Id. But the agreement must be reasonable “as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business.”Id. To be reasonable, a restrictive covenant must “‘protect against the employee’s gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer, but not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill.’” Coates v. Bastian Brothers, Inc, 276 Mich. App. 498, 741 N.W.2d 539  (2007) If the agreement is found to be unreasonable, a court may “limit the agreement to

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action. It found diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest and allowed race to be one of several factors in college admission policy, but rejected specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the UC Davis School of Medicine. Although the court had outlawed segregation in schools, it had not resolved the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs initiated by universities. Proponents deemed such programs necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case

(1) Constitutional Question: Is the medical program of the University of California, giving different standards to minority’s, in violations of the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act or 1964?

Miller v. California was one of the first attempts to define what would constitute as obscene matter in the eyes of the law. The prosecution came about because Miller started a mail campaign to advertise the sale of adult material. Some of the recipients found the material offensive and alerted the local police. This distribution was found in violation of a California act prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. The court case decided that obscene materials did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision. Miller v. California also lead to the modification of both Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which was a case that had originally set the tests for obscenity. This case set the standards

Employers can no longer require employees to litigate or arbitrate employment issues outside of California, under the laws of another state. Companies are now prohibited from pre-selecting the venue for a dispute between themselves and employees. SB 1241 allows employees

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

California Labor Code section 3353 defines independent contractor as “any person who renders services for a specified recompense for a specific result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.” Cal. Lab. Code § 3353 (West 2011). While the “right of control” test is the most significant factor of an employment relationship, applying it rigidly and in isolation is insufficient, and other secondary factors should be considered. S.G.

The use of arbitration agreements by California employers has seen much debate in recent years and is presently undergoing significant change. Employers utilizing arbitration agreements with their employees should be aware of a new ruling that holds employees cannot waive their right to collectively arbitrate claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) and any arbitration agreement that requires an employee to arbitrate individually is invalid. The ruling came on September 23, 2015 in a 2-1 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Kate is the owner of a successful business, selling women’s shoes. Her business is expanding fast and she wants to upgrade her business structure to a more appropriate one. What would be your recommendation to Kate and why? What are the factors that influence you with this advice?

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)