A Question of Ethics-The IDDR Approach and Arbitration. John McAdams is a tenured professor of political science at Marquette University. McAdams posted a comment on his blog criticizing Cheryl Abbate, a philosophy instructor, for ber interchange with a student in her Theory of Ethics class. Lynn Turner, also a member of the faculty, expressed a negative opinion of McAdams's comment in a letter to the Marquette Tribune. Meanwhile, on Abbate's complaint, the university convened the Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC)_which consists entirely of faculty members, including Turner-to consider the case. Acting on the FHC's recommendation, Marquette suspended McAdams for a semester without pay and ordered him to apologize to Abbate. He refused, and filed a suit in a Wisconsin state court against Marquette. [McAdams v. Marquette University, $383$ Wis.$2$d $358$, $914$ N. W.$2$d $708$ $(2018$)] (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.)

• Apply the IDDR approach to consider the ethics of Marquette's convening of the FHC in McAdams's case.
• From a legal perspective, was the university's disciplinary procedure the functional equivalent of arbitration, limiting McAdams's right to litigate his claim in court? Explain.

LG Electronics, Inc., a South Korean company, and nineteen other foreign companies participated in the global market for cathode ray tube (CRT) products. CRTs were integrated as components in consumer goods, including television sets, and were sold for many years in high volume in the United States, including the state of Washington. The state filed a suit in a Washington state court against LG and the others, alleging a conspiracy to raise prices and set production levels in the market for CRTs in violation of a state consumer protection statute. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should this motion be granted? Explain. [State of Washington v. LG Electronics, Inc., 341 P.3d 346 (Wash. App., Div. 1 2015)]

Business Case Problem with Sample AnswerCorporate Contacts. LG Electronics, Inc., a South Korean company, and nineteen other foreign companies participated in the global market for cathode ray tube (CRT) products. CRTs were integrated as components in consumer goods, including television sets, and were sold for many years in high volume in the United States, including the state of Washington. The state filed a suit in a Washington state court against LG and the others, alleging a conspiracy to raise prices and set production levels in the market for CRTs in violation of a state consumer protection statute. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should this motion be granted? Explain. [State of Washington v. LG Electronics, Inc., $185$ Wash.App. $394$, $341$ P.$3$d $346$ (Div. $1 2015$)] (See Basic Judicial Requirements.)

Sources of Law. This chapter discussed a number of sources of American law. Which source of law takes priority in the following situations, and why? (See Sources of American Law.)

A federal statute conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

A federal statute conflicts with a state constitutional provision.

A state statute conflicts with the common law of that state.

A state constitutional amendment conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

Implied Warranties. Harold Moore bought a barrelracing horse named Clear Boggy for $\$ 100,000$ for his daughter. The seller was Betty Roper, who appraises barrel-racing horses. (Barrel racing is a rodeo event in which a horse and rider attempt to complete a cloverleaf pattern around preset barrels in the fastest time.) Clear Boggy was promoted for sale as a competitive barrel-racing horse. On inquiry, Roper represented that Clear Boggy did not have any performance issues or medi$\mathrm{cal}$ problems, and that the only medications the horse had been given were hock injections, a common treatment. Shortly after the purchase, Clear Boggy began exhibiting significant performance problems, including nervousness, unwillingness to practice, and stalling during runs. Roper then disclosed that the horse had been given shoulder injections prior to the sale and had previously stalled in competition. Moore took the horse to a veterinarian and discovered that it suffered from arthritis, impinged vertebrae, front-left-foot problems, and a right-hind-leg fracture. The vet recommended, and Moore paid for, surgery to repair the leg fracture, but Clear Boggy remained unfit for competition. Moore also discovered that the horse had been scratched from a competition prior to the sale because it was injured. Can Moore prevail in a lawsuit against Roper for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose? Why or why not?

Write each expression in power form $ax^b$ for numbers a and b. $\frac{\sqrt{36 x}}{2 x}$

Wandering Dago (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a "nod to their Italian heritage" and "weakening the derogatory force of the slur." Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the application because of WD's branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD's right to free speech. What principles apply to the government's regulation of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD's case? Explain.

PRM Energy Systems owned patents licensed to Primenergy to use in the United States. Their contract stated that “all disputes” would be settled by arbitration. Kobe Steel of Japan was interested in using the technology represented by PRM’s patents. Primenergy agreed to let Kobe use the technology in Japan without telling PRM. When PRM learned about the secret deal, the firm filed a suit against Primenergy for fraud and theft. Does this dispute go to arbitration or to trial? Why? [PRM Energy Systems v. Primenergy, 592 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2010)]

Seal Polymer Industries sold two freight containers of latex gloves to Med-Express, Inc., a company based in North Carolina. When Med-Express failed to pay the $104,000 owed for the gloves, Seal Polymer sued in an Illinois court and obtained a judgment against MedExpress. Med-Express argued that it did not have minimum contacts with Illinois because it was incorporated under North Carolina law and had its principal place of business in North Carolina. Therefore, the Illinois judgment based on personal jurisdiction was invalid. Was this argument alone sucient to prevent the Illinois judgment from being collected against Med-Express in North Carolina? Why or why not? [Seal Polymer Industries v. Med-Express, Inc., 725 S.E.2d 5 (N.C.App. 2012)]

A Question of Ethics-The IDDR Approach and Illusory Promises. Scott Caldwell worked for UniFirst Corporation under an employment agreement with an arbitration clause. The agreement provided that either party could avoid arbitration by seeking an injunction-but only the employer could obtain this relief without showing that any actual damage had been done. When a lumbar disc protrusion caused Caldwell severe pain, his physician ordered him to take eleven days off work and then return to light duty. Caldwell's supervisor called the need for time off "unacceptable" and disregarded the request for accommodation, continuing to assign Caldwell physically strenuous tasks. After Caldwell underwent surgery, his physician informed UniFirst that Caldwell could return to work full time without restrictions. Instead of allowing Caldwell to return to work, UniFirst fired him. In Caldwell's subsequent suit against the firm, a state court refused to compel arbitration. The court held that the employment agreement's injunction provision rendered “illusory any promises to arbitrate."

(a) Apply the IDDR approach to evaluate the ethics of the employer's responses to Caldwell's medical problems.

(b) From an ethical perspective, review UniFirst's decision to include the injunction provision in its employment agreement.

Arbitration. PRM Energy Systems owned patents licensed to Primenergy to use in the United States. Their contract stated that "all disputes" would be settled by arbitration. Kobe Steel of Japan was interested in using the technology represented by PRM's patents. Primenergy agreed to let Kobe use the technology in Japan without telling PRM. When PRM learned about the secret deal, the firm filed a suit against Primenergy for fraud and theft. Does this dispute go to arbitration or to trial? Why? [PRM Energy Systems v. Primenergy, $592$ F.$3$d $830$ ($8$th Cir. $2010$)] (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.)

Foreman and his manager in a federal district court located in Illinois, alleging breach of contract. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the question.

On what basis might the federal district court in Illinois exercise jurisdiction in this case?

Ethical Leadership. Mark Clapp and Albert DiBrito worked for the Public Safety Department (PSD) in St. Joseph, Michigan. Clapp was the director, and DiBrito was the deputy director. They were under the supervision of the city manager. One day, Clapp told Tom Vaught, a PSD employee, that the previous city manager had hired DiBrito only because DiBrito had been investigating the city manager for possible wrongdoing. Clapp said that DiBrito had dropped his investigation in exchange for the deputy director position. DiBrito learned of Clapp's statement and filed a formal complaint against him on another matter with Richard Lewis, the current city manager. The investigation that followed revealed management problems within the PSD. A consultant hired by the city concluded that Clapp's remarks about DiBrito had been "inappropriate statements for a commanding officer to make regarding a second in charge." However, the consultant also identified issues regarding DiBrito's "honesty, inappropriate statements to subordinates regarding a commanding officer, favoritism, and retaliation." How do a manager's attitudes and actions affect a workplace? What steps do you think Lewis could take to prevent future ethical misconduct? [DiBrito v. City of St. Joseph, $675$ Fed.Appx. $593$ ($6$th Cir. $2017$)] (See Ethics and the Role of Business.)

Angelica Westbrook was employed as a collector for Franklin Collection Service, Inc. During a collection call, Westbrook told a debtor that a $15 processing fee was an “interest” charge. This violated company policy. Westbrook was fired. She filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) approved. Franklin objected. At an MDES hearing, a Franklin supervisor testi- fied that she had heard Westbrook make the false statement, although she admitted that there had been no similar incidents with Westbrook. Westbrook denied making the statement, but added that if she had said it, she did not remember it. The agency found that Franklin’s reason for terminating Westbrook did not amount to the misconduct required to disqualify her for benefits and upheld the approval. Franklin appealed to a state intermediate appellate court. Is the court likely to uphold the agency’s findings of fact? Explain. [Franklin Collection Service, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 184 So.3d 330 (Miss.App. 2016)] (