c. Scott Sullivan – The fact that Mr. Sullivan asked Cynthia and team to hold off on reporting their findings and that he would take care of it next quarter leads me to believe he knew what was going on all along. I believe that Scott really thought that he could take care of it next quarter, shifting funds or firing Cynthia and her team, had Cynthia had taken his advice and held off she may have found herself and her team on the chopping block and facing federal charges. 2. Using some sort of graphic, Compare and contrast Cynthia Cooper’s actions with IIA guidance. Where did Cynthia violate IIA ethical standards?
The PDA states that woman cannot be banned from certain jobs due to she might have issued with pregnancy; this is Paula’s choice to make. Paula has a very strong case against NewCorp because of Sam’s action; this is a very big offense and can really harm NewCorps reputation. Legal Encounter 3 NewCorp needs to be very careful in this situation with Paul as if they try to fire or demote him after he issued a complaint with OSHA it can cause several legal actions against NewCorp to arise. Congress passed an Occupational Safety and Health act of 1970 that requires all employers to provide a safe workplace for employees and OSHA is the federal agency that regulates this. Since Paul has already issued a complaint with OSHA NewCorp can’t take any action against Paul right now because he can file a complaint with the department of labor and that can open up a whole new can of worms for
They called for the government to seize the opportunity to make the relevant changes needed to close down places like Winterbourne view and that in the 21st century they should no longer exist, suggesting that more local services be developed. The Serious Case Review produced by South Gloucestershire council said that the owners Castlebeck “put profit before standards”. Describing the abuse featured in Panorama as “the arbitrary violence against vulnerable patients” and Winterbourne View as a place where “the use of restraint was commonplace”. Since the Winterbourne view scandal the CQC have recruited an extra 229 inspectors, created better systems and ways of working enabling more unannounced spot checks of high risk services and created a specialist CQC team to take whistleblowing calls ensuring that each one is investigated and
Both seem to be making a conscious decision about right and wrong and a practical decision about the impact of a baby on their lives. Each of the couples and the doctors were faced with conflicts on multiple levels involving both individual psychological needs and differences of values. These conflicts required resolutions that were interpersonal (ethical decisions for both parents and physicians), intrapersonal (between the parents themselves) and intergroup (between parents and the medical communities that served them). The causes of the conflict in the stories were values of the people. They believed that abortions were okay even though they knew they were being put in situations in which there was a possibility of them having multiple fetuses.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1974, which defined “sex” discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and child birth (Jennings, 2006). Because Paula is not pregnant, she has the right under the Equal Employment Opportunity and cannot can not be treated less equally which would be disparate treatment. Management should grant the transfer, make sure Paula is aware of the chemicals in case she does get pregnant and place Sam on probation excluding him from being around Paula. If his action occurs or he continually harasses Paula, Sam should lose his job to prevent the harassment from going to court. Newcorp would face the charges and pay Paula if she wins the case in
No one in the Lacks family had been informed of the existence of their mother's cells until a researcher called in the early 1970s wanting to test the family. With this news, the family felt confused and scared. One of the family members described feeling to be the same as being raped, where they did it and nobody told them. The reporter even interprets that the “devil” in this whole study was Johns Hopkins University. One interviewee, Dr. Daniel Ford, states that, "Johns Hopkins needs to do a better job of communicating with the family and of recognizing it" but he also states that using Henrietta's genes was a standard practice at the time.
It started when the nurse Paris Stated “this is an attack on the court!” and right away answering back at Paris with a loud and angry tone stating “Is every defense an attack on the court!” Reverend Hale stood up for the first time for one of the accused. He not only stood up for the nurse, but he stood up for her in front of all the supposedly proclaimed “SAVED ONES”. He showed sympathy and actually doubted for the first time if all these acquisitions against these people were true. At this point in the play, Hale is starting to doubt the court. He has not yet lost all hope in the court, but has altered his mind on the subject differently.
She says specifically that “Why can’t you be on the right side of things?”(Page 8). So basically she is anti Darwinism before the trial. Rachel after the trial After attending the trial and hearing the strong argument of Mr. Henry Drummond Rachel in my opinion was not the same. I think that the exposure to something new was all that Rachel needed to change her view of her religion. Now that the trial was over Rachel opened her mind into thinking that maybe going against what everyone believe can be a good thing to do in some instances.
Since the husband is there at the scene and has not defended his self from when she said he is the abuser. The wife can make a citizen arrested on her husband or the officer can make the arrest. The husband should be arrested immediate because the proof is there and his silence answer the abuse questions itself (Hess Orithmann, C. and Hess, K.M., 2013, p 310). What are the legal requirements that the police officers have to consider and follow? The legal requirements that they have to follow are based on the evidence that is present looking into the physical signs of the aggressors.
The Courts of Appeals which was vacated and the case were remanded for further proceedings. The justifications that the Supreme Court gave for its decision where as follows: That Raich’s physician could not provide evidence that Raich “cannot be without marijuana as medicine” because without it she would suffer quickly or she may even deteriorate and could very well die. The Supreme Court also stated “in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress acted within the bounds of its Commerce Clause authority when it criminalized that the purely intrastate manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act I feel that it was because the caregivers where the ones growing it because Ms. Raich could not do it herself because was confined to a wheelchair. That there is no Tenth Amendment violation in this case where Ms. Raich stated that her rights of the Tenth and Ninth among other Amendments were violated. The Supreme Court also stated “that even