Motion for Summary Judgment. Rebecca Nichols drove a truck for Tri-National Logistics, Inc. (TNI). On a delivery trip, Nichols's fellow driver, James Paris, made unwelcome sexual advances. Paris continued to make advances during a subsequent mandatory layover. Nichols reported this behavior to their employer. TNI nevertheless left her with Paris in Pharr, Texas, for another seven days with no alternative form of transportation before sending a driver to pick her up. She filed a suit in a federal district court against TNI, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Disputed facts included whether Nichols subjectively felt abused by Paris and whether their employer was aware of his conduct and failed to take appropriate action. Could TNI successfully file a motion for summary judgment at this point? Explain. [Nichols v. Tri-National Logistics, Inc., $809$ F.$3$d $981$ ($8$th Cir. $2016$)] (See Pretrial Procedures .)

Service of Process. Dr. Kevin Bardwell owns Northfield Urgent Care, LLC, a Minnesota medical clinic. Northfield ordered flu vaccine from Clint Pharmaceuticals, a licensed distributer of flu vaccine located in Tennessee. The parties signed a credit agreement that specified that any disputes would be litigated in the Tennessee state courts. When Northfield failed to pay what it owed for the vaccine, Clint Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit in Tennessee and served process on the clinic via registered mail to Dr. Bardwell, the registered agent of Northfield.

Bardwell's wife, who worked as a receptionist at the clinic and handled inquiries on the clinic's Facebook site, signed for the letter. Bardwell did not appear on the trial date, however, and the Tennessee court entered a default judgment against Northfield. When Clint Pharmaceuticals attempted to collect on the judgment in Minnesota, Bardwell claimed that the judgment was unenforceable. He asserted that he had not been properly served because his wife was not a registered agent. Should the Minnesota court invalidate the Tennessee judgment? Was service of process proper, given that the notice was mailed to the defendant medical clinic and the wife of the physician who owned the clinic opened the letter? Explain. [Clint Pharmaceuticals v. Northfield Urgent Care, LLC, $2012$ WL $3792546$ (Minn.App. $2012$).] (See Pretrial Procedures.)

T.R. is a $22$-year-old college senior who lives in the dormitory. His friend finds him wandering aimlessly about the campus appearing pale and sweaty. He engages T.R. in conversation and walks him to the campus medical clinic, where you are on duty. The friend explains to you how he found T.R. and states that T.R. has diabetes mellitus (DM) and takes insulin. T.R. is not wearing a medical warning tag. It is $1015$

T.R. tells you he took $35$ units glargine (Lantus) insulin and $12$ units of regular (Humulin R) insulin at $0745$. He says he was late to class, so he just grabbed an apple on the way. He adds that he has had two similar low-blood sugar episodes in the past. He treated them by eating a candy bar and then ate a meal. He says he is on a $2000$-calorie, carbohydrate (CHO)–controlled diet but has been checking his blood glucose levels every “couple of days” only.

Based on your knowledge of the types of insulin T.R. is receiving, when would you expect T.R. to experience a hypoglycemic reaction?

Ethical Principles. Stephen Glass made himself infamous as a dishonest journalist by fabricating material for more than forty articles for The New Republic magazine and other publications. He also fabricated supporting materials to delude The New Republic's fact checkers. At the time, he was a law student at Georgetown University. Once suspicions were aroused, Glass tried to avoid detection. Later, Glass applied for admission to the California bar. The California Supreme Court denied his application, citing "numerous instances of dishonesty and disingenuousness" during his "rehabilitation" following the exposure of his misdeeds. How do these circumstances underscore the importance of ethics? Discuss. [In re Glass, $58$ Cal.$4$th $500, 316$ P.$3$d $1199$ ($2014$)] (See Ethical Principles and Philosophies.)

Mark Ramun worked as a manager for Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., where he had a tense relationship with his father, who was Allied’s president. After more than ten years, Mark left Allied, taking 15,000 pages of Allied’s documents on DVDs and CDs, which constituted trade secrets. Later, he joined Genesis Equipment & Manufacturing, Inc., a competitor. Genesis soon developed a piece of equipment that incorporated elements of Allied equipment. How might business ethics have been violated in these circumstances? Discuss. [Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equipment & Manufacturing, Inc., 511 Fed.Appx. 398 (6th Cir. 2013)] (See Business Ethics.)

Should Playskool’s request for summary judgment be granted? Why or why not?

Ronald Metzgar placed his fifteen-month-old son, Matthew, awake and healthy, in his playpen. Ronald left the room for five minutes and on his return found Matthew lifeless. A toy block had lodged in the boy's throat, causing him to choke to death. Ronald called $911$, but efforts to revive Matthew were to no avail. There was no warning of a choking hazard on the box containing the block. Matthew's parents hired an attorney and sued Playskool, Inc., the manufacturer of the block, alleging that the manufacturer had been negligent in failing to warn of the block's hazard. Playskool filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the danger of a young child's choking on a small block was obvious. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the question.

Suppose that the judge denied Playskool's motion and the case proceeded to trial. After hearing all the evidence, the jury found in favor of the defendant. What options do the plaintiffs have at this point if they are not satisfied with the verdict?

A Question of Ethics-Applying the IDDR Framework. Priscilla Dickman worked as a medical technologist at the University of Connecticut Health Center for twenty-eight years. Early in her career at the Health Center, Dickman sustained a back injury while at work. The condition eventually worsened, causing her significant back pain and disability. Her physician ordered restrictions on her work duties for several years. Then Dickman's supervisor received complaints that Dickman was getting personal phone calls and was frequently absent from her work area. Based on e-mails and other documents found on her work computer, it appeared that she had been running two side businesses (selling jewelry and providing travel agent services) while at work. The state investigated, and she was convicted of a civil ethics violation for engaging in "personal business for financial gain on state time utilizing state resources." Separate investigations resulted in criminal convictions for forgery and the filing of an unrelated fraudulent insurance claim.

Dickman "retired" from herjob (after she obtained approval for disability retirement) and filed a claim with the state of Connecticut against the health center. She alleged that her former employer had initiated the investigations to harass her and force her to quit. She claimed that the Health Center was unlawfully retaliating against her for being disabled and being put on workplace restrictions. [Dickman v. University of Connecticut Health Center, $162$ Conn.App. $441$, $132$ A.$3$d $739$ ($2016$)] (See Making Ethical Business Decisions.)

• Assume that you are Dickman's supervisor and have been informed that she is frequently away from her desk and often makes personal phone calls. The first step of using the IDDR method is inquiry, so you start asking questions. Several people tell you that that Dickman has offered to sell them jewelry. Others say she has offered to make travel arrangements for them. You have not spoken to Dickman directly about the complaints and are not sure if you should. You also know that the Health Center would need more evidence of wrongdoing to justify firing Dickman but are uncertain as to whether you can search her computer. Should you report your findings to management? Is there any ethical problem involved in investigating and possibly firing a long-term employee? Is it fair to terminate an employee who is under disability restrictions? How would you frame the ethical dilemma that the Health Center faced in this case, and who are the stakeholders? What ethical theories would you use to guide your decision?

• Now suppose that you are Dickman. You have been a medical technologist for a long time but now experience severe back pain while at your desk at the Health Center. You find that you have less pain if you get up and move around during the day, rather than just sitting. That is why you are often away from your desk. You know that you will not be able to do this job much longer, and that is why you recently started a jewelry business and began providing travel services. Sure, you have made a few personal phone calls related to those businesses while at the Health Center, but other employees make personal calls, and they have not been fired. You feel that the Health Center's investigation was intended to force you to quit because you are disabled and cannot perform the tasks that you used to perform. Using the inquiry portion of the IDDR method, how might you frame the ethical issue you face, and who are the stakeholders? What ethical principles can help you analyze the problem thoroughly ?

Ronald Metzgar placed his fifteen-month-old son, Matthew, awake and healthy, in his playpen. Ronald left the room for five minutes and on his return found Matthew lifeless. A toy block had lodged in the boy's throat, causing him to choke to death. Ronald called $911$, but efforts to revive Matthew were to no avail. There was no warning of a choking hazard on the box containing the block. Matthew's parents hired an attorney and sued Playskool, Inc., the manufacturer of the block, alleging that the manufacturer had been negligent in failing to warn of the block's hazard. Playskool filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the danger of a young child's choking on a small block was obvious. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the question.

How would the Metzgars' attorney likely have served process (the summons and complaint) on Playskool, Inc.?

Savant Homes, Inc., is a custom home designer and builder. Using what it called the “Anders Plan,” Savant built a model house in Windsor, Colorado. This was a ranch house with two bedrooms on one side and a master suite on the other, separated by a combined family room, dining room, and kitchen. Ron and Tammie Wagner toured the Savant house. The same month, the Wagners hired builder Douglas Collins and his form, Douglas Consulting, LLC, to build a house for them in Windsor. After it was built, Savant fled a suit in a federal district court against Collins for copyright infringement, alleging that the builder had copied the Anders Plan in the design and construction of the Wagner house. Collins showed that the Anders Plan consisted of standard elements and standard arrangements of elements. In these circumstances, has infringement occurred? Explain. [Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, 809 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2016)] (See Copyrights.)

The U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services collects and reports information about naturalized persons in Statistical Yearbook. Following is an age distribution for persons naturalized during one year.

$$\begin{array}{c|c||c|c} \hline \text { Age (yr) } & \text { Frequency } & \text { Age (yr) } & \text { Frequency } \\ \hline 18-19 & 5,958 & 45-49 & 42,820 \\ 20-24 & 50,905 & 50-54 & 32,574 \\ 25-29 & 58,829 & 55-59 & 25,534 \\ 30-34 & 64,735 & 60-64 & 18,767 \\ 35-39 & 69,844 & 65-74 & 25,528 \\ 40-44 & 57,834 & 75 \& \text { over } & 9,872 \\ \hline \end{array}$$

Suppose that one of these naturalized persons is selected at random. a. Without using the general addition rule, determine the probability that the age of the person obtained is either between 30 and 64, inclusive, or at least 50. b. Find the probability in part (a), using the general addition rule. C. Which method did you find easier?

Federal oficers obtained a warrant to arrest Kateena Norman on charges of credit-card fraud and identity theft. Evidence of the crime included videos, photos, and a fingerprint on a fraudulent check. A previous search of Norman’s house had uncovered credit cards, new merchandise, and identifying information for other persons. An Internet account registered to the address had been used to apply for fraudulent credit cards, and a fraudulently obtained rental car was parked on the property. As the oficers arrested Norman outside her house, they saw another woman and a caged pit bull inside. They further believed that Norman’s boyfriend, who had a criminal record and was also suspected of identify theft, could be there. In less than a minute, the oficers searched only those areas within the house in which a person could hide. Would it be reasonable to admit evidence revealed in this “protective sweep” during Norman’s trial on the arrest charges? Discuss. [United States v. Norman, __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 324949 (11th Cir. 2016)]

Motivation of drug dealers. Refer to the Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice (September 2009) study of convicted drug dealers' motivations, Exercise $2.80$ (p. 87 ). Recall that the sample of drug dealers had a mean Wanting Recognition (WR) score of 39 points, with a standard deviation of 6 points. What proportion of the sampled drug dealers had WR scores below 39 points? (Assume the distribution of WR scores is mound-shaped and symmetric.)

Priscilla Dickman worked as a medical technologist at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Dickman’s supervisor received complaints that she was getting nonbusiness-related phone calls and was absent from her work area when she should have been working. Based on e-mails and other documents found on Dickman’s work computer, the state investigated her for violations of state law. She was convicted of conducting “personal business for financial gain on state time utilizing state resources.” Separate criminal investigations resulted in convictions for forgery and filing an unrelated fraudulent insurance claim. She “retired” from her job and filed a claim with the state of Connecticut against the health center, alleging that her former employer had initiated the investigations to harass her and force her to quit. For lack of “credible evidence or legal support,” the claim was dismissed. Which of these acts, if any, were unethical? Why? [Dickman v. University of Connecticut Health Center, 162 Conn.App. 441, __ A.3d __ (2016)] (See Business Ethics.)