Business Law Discussion Questions

Attached is the discussion questions for class. If there’s a specific reading you need you think I missed. Please let me know. For some you can answer with your own knowledge, some you do have to use what’s used in class. Make sure everything you write is in your OWN words. No use of paraphrasing, not even plagiarism. No use of artificial intelligence such as chatgpt because they have software that picks it up. Please let me know again if I’m missing anything. This professor is strict so please refrain for cheating or anything. You’ll notice the questions will say respond to fellow classmates, don’t worry about that because I will do it, unless I need help I will ask.

Discussion Question 1: Consider the Sullivan v. Harnisch case and the Pierce v. Ortho
Pharmaceuticals case. How do these two employees fit the profile of a whistleblower? In your
response, analyze and describe the characteristics of whistleblowers. Do you agree with the
court’s decisions in these cases? Why or why not? Compare and contrast the facts in both cases
in your response and reference the ethical theory(ies) that support your conclusions.
The court in Ortho noted: “An employee does not have a right to continued employment when he
or she refuses to conduct research simply because it would contravene his or her personal
morals.” In your opinion, is this a valid public policy? Your discussion post should contain 5
substantive paragraphs. Read all posts of your classmates and respond to at least 3 posts.
Discussion Question 2:
Consider this scenario: A technologically-advanced employee who works in Human Resources
(HR) is asked to provide input on six applicants for a position at her company. The position is
fairly high in the company, but not a top executive position. Using advanced computer skills, the
HR worker can find Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, blog entries, Gmail and Yahoo email
communications, and other Internet-based information about each of the applicants. She knows
that most of the information is considered by the applicants to be private and available only to
people to whom they have given access. The HR employee is able to discover party habits,
vacation destinations and activities, activities with friends, personal preferences for products and
reading material, health information, and other personal information.
The HR employee is asked to provide as detailed a report as possible. What should she do? She
knows her employer is challenged to find an excellent candidate and she wants to help but isn’t
sure that she should share this information.
What ethical standards will you apply in analyzing this information? Consider the pros and cons
of each of the theories and discuss the aspects of the theories that make the theory useful in your
analysis. (To strengthen your response, reference Chapter 4 cases and outcomes to support your
decision.) Your discussion post should contain 5 substantive paragraphs.
Read all posts of your classmates and respond to at least 3 posts.
Discussion Question #3:
Based on your review of the U.S. Legal System and the articles by Milton Friedman and John
Mackey, it seems clear that businesses are not legally required to engage in acts demonstrating
corporate social responsibility. In your opinion, however, do you believe that businesses should
engage in CSR? Should they be required to engage in CSR? Why or why not? Please provide
substantive content from the readings in your response and in replies to your classmates. Your
analysis should be at least 5 paragraphs long, and respond with specificity to the questions noted.
Integrate concepts regarding the rule of law and the significance of mandating and enforcing
aspects of behavior.
Discussion #4:
Identify the parties in this case (who is the plaintiff? The defendant?). See questions 1-4
following the case (p. 4) and formulate a post responding to each of the four questions. Review
and comment on at least three of your classmates’ posts. The answers can be short and brief but
must answer the question.
The plantiff was Joseph F. Yania’s widow as she was the one who filed a lawsuit againist John E.
Bigan. John E. Bigan is the defendent as being sued for the death of Joseph F. Yania.
1. What happened in this case? If Yania couldn’t swim, why did he jump?
2. Identify each of the arguments made by Yania’s widow. For each, explain how the judge dealt
with it.
3. According to the judge, Bigan would have been liable in this case under certain circumstances
that did not apply here. What are those circumstances?
4. Suppose you could revise the law of rescue. Would you hold people responsible for doing
something to help others in an emergency? If so, what circumstances would trigger a duty to
rescue? How much would be required of a rescuer?