Chick Does Not Have a Legal Basis

Chick does not have a legal basis for a case, neither does the injured Per L. Eyzed. This is because Chick was on lunch when she hit someone. She was technically not on duty. She "stopped" for lunch and then hit Per with her bike. Also another thing to note is if the bike is owned by the company? Additionally, Chick was not paid under her internship with the security firm, proving anything owned and done by Chick was through her choice and money.

The bike is in fact owned by Chick. This also further helps prove that the case is unfounded. If per chance the bike was a company owned bike, perhaps the injured Per could sue, but because at the beginning, Chick stated she chose to bike to work with her bicycle, proving she is in direct possession of her bike. Since she does not have any money, suing her would not result in much, but there is a possibility to sue and she could sue Chick for medical bills.

She can sue her in small claims court for cases of less than $2,500-$2,000 in monetary value without the need of a lawyer. Also of note, the accident happened on or near Sue-She Bar, if anything, if Sue-She Bar had invited or asked Per or Chick to come and eat there, they have a right to sue them for monetary compensation because they are responsible for any guests within their establishment. But because it happened outside of the establishment, there are no grounds for suing from either Chick or Per.

Company time vs. personal time is the clear deciding factor in this case. Perhaps had Chick decided not to go to lunch and just deliver the documents, she would not have had the accident. When she chose to go for lunch, that second is when the company stopped being liable. Getting deeper into it, defining whether the security firm was negligent and led to Per's personal injury.

Did the security firm owe a duty to the plaintiff? Did the they owe a duty to either Chick or Per? The security company did not have any duty on either party. Chick had a duty as a "driver" to not hit anyone while "driving" (on bicycle). There was no breach of contract thusly. The security did not have any direct or indirect action against Per or Chick.

They were not "cause in fact." They were not aware of the incident and their involvement perhaps would have resulted in Per not getting injured as this happened during "personal time." Furthermore, the case does not state there are any damages. Damages must be shown by either party in order to prove a case. Both Chick and Per must have medical bills to explain to the court that they were injured. In any personal injury case, damages include medical bills and damages for pain and suffering resulting from the images.

Without the physical proof, the medical bills, there is no proof of damages done. Chick was clearly in the wrong and can incur any potential damages sought by Per, but the company is completely clear of any wrong doing. To further add to this, there is no mention of any contract or agreement made by Chick to do errands for Babson on a bike. She could easily have walked, taken the bus, or even paid for a cab.

Her deciding to get on a personal bike, go out on a personal errand (get lunch), and then be negligent and hit someone while on a personal errands provides no ground to sue for her or the other party member in relation to the security firm. They also cannot sue-She bar because it happened outside of the establishment and they were not invited nor did they both participate within the establishment as guests. The only person who can sue is Per and she can sue Chick.

In order for her to sue, she has to prove there were sufficient damages. The only way to do that is to show a medical bill stating what kind of damages were sustained during the time of the injury. Although Chick does not have any insurance, she can still be sued. Small claims court can handle these kinds of cases however, because it is a civil matter, Per will most likely not get any money from the case.

Civil cases even with lawyers are often fraught with long wait times to receive compensation and normally result in waiting for years to receive anything. Therefor it is simply best to just walk away from the issue. 2. "Insider trading" is a term that anyone who is an investor has heard normally associates with illegal conduct. The Martha Stewart case along with other recent government actions, have resulted in more and more people becoming aware of the legality surrounding insider trading.

Two very important things to note from this scenario is Chick did not get paid employment from May's Flowers at the time of her decision to advise her friend on investing. Since she was not an employee of May's Flowers, that has some effect on the legality of her insider trading. Another thing to note is whether she made her advice to her friend public knowledge before she told her friend. Chick told her friend to invest long before she made it public knowledge on any social media.

Therefore, that stands against Chick and shows she was performing insider trading. Current employees of a firm can trade and buy up stock from their own company if they believe their company will do well. That is not illegal, but when they suggest a friend, family, or other to buy up stock in their firm, that is illegal.

If she would have bought up stock herself, and told her friend that she is buying up stock in her company, technically it would not be grounds for insider trading as she did not suggest to her to buy stock, and she did not provide the means to get her the stock. Chick specifically helped her friend from Babson get a broker and shared with her knowledge of the company that was not made public.

The company was a company Chick worked for in the past establishing a prior connection to the company and evidence that she could have had the means to get insider knowledge on the company. She also stated within her social media pages that she helped her friend with the stocks. This acts as a confession as she willfully admitted she had an action in her friend gaining money from her stock investments on a company that she had insider knowledge of.

Going back to legal insider trading, when corporate insiders trade in their own securities, any trading done must be reported to the SEC. The SEC is where people like investors or potential investors can tell whether or not a company is worth investing in. That is why when the previous example of her buying stock, but not advising her friend to is not ground for illegal training. However, she would still have to report it to the SEC to avoid any potential pitfalls.

The insider trading definition that becomes illegal is purchasing or selling of a security, in breach of a fiduciary responsibility or other association of trust and assurance, while in ownership of material, nonpublic evidence about the security. Within the last decade or so, the SEC and the courts have significantly extended this definition, to include trading by individuals whose "relationship of trust" is so far-flung as to be non-existent, making Chick's actions all the more plausible for potential illegal activity.

The discount broker, if he/she knew of the insider trading and willfully helped Chick's friend with the investment, he/she can also be held accountable for insider trading. Insider trading abuses may also consist of "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who embezzle such information. This means friends, family, and others who have learned of a major and confidential or "non-public knowledge" of a company's developments.

This also includes other persons who stole, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers. Chick "stole" the information from the time that she worked for May's Flowers and "tipped" her friend. She then publicized it via a social media page or platform making it public knowledge and a public confession that she participated in insider trading. The philosophy behind the exclusion on insider trading is that it destabilizes investor confidence in the equality and honesty of the securities markets.

The SEC claims that the discovery and examination of insider trading violations as one of its implementation primacies, and all investors must be conscious of the possible danger in trading on a "tip" from someone who knows non-public material concerning a security. To further hurt Chick's case, she got her friend a broke which proves her involvement, her friend's involvement, and the broker's involvement in the insider trading. Brokers have to go through paperwork in order to secure an investment.

There is a paper trail for Chick's friend stating she invested in May's flowers. If the broker testifies against Chick, he/she will state that Chick had direct involvement in acquiring him/her as the broker and also the use of the investment advice. Because the broker that Chick used was not from her place of work, the company she works for is not associated with the illegal trading. Only her friend, she, and potentially the broker have any possible legal ramifications on this kind of matter. 3.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with at minimum fifteen employees, including any employment agencies and unions, from discriminating in employment based on color, race, sex, national origin, and for this scenario, religion. It also forbids reprisal against persons who protest of discrimination or partake in an EEO investigation. In regards to the religion aspect of the Title, Title VII prohibits: 1. Handling applicants or employees inversely based on their religious beliefs or observes -- or lack thereof -- in any characteristic of employment.

This may include recruitment, assignment, promotion, discipline, and benefits (unequal treatment); exposing employees to harassment due to their religious beliefs or observes -- or lack thereof -- or because of the religious observes or principles of people with whom they established a relationship with (e.g. Friends, significant other, family, etc.); 2. rejecting a requested sensible accommodation of an applicant's or employee's honestly held religious beliefs or observes -- or lack thereof -- if said accommodation will not enforce more than a de minimis cost or encumbrance on business procedures; 3.

Reacting against an applicant or employee who has participated in protected activity, including contribution or obstruction to religious discrimination. Chick's scenario is tricky. Yes the investment firm was wrong in not hiring Chick based on her religious views or behavior impacted by her religion. They also discriminated against her based on her name, which although might be unethical, does not necessarily fall in the realm of discrimination.

After all, companies do have to worry about their image and brand and have a right to not associate or hire people if it hurts their brand or image if it is not based on age, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Simply not hiring someone based on their professional name is not grounds for discrimination. However, they did not choose her also based on her religion which is grounds for discrimination.

Had they made this public or confessed it to Chick, then perhaps there may have been basis for a possible case. The scenario does not state they told Chick how they felt or confessed to even looking at her social media page. They simply checked her social media page and then based on what they observed, they made their decision. This is important to note because how would Chick learn of these considerations? No evidence would suggest she would.

If she somehow did, there would have evidence which could be checked if they saw the company's browsing history, the examination of the social media pages would have had to been done during company time, on a company computer with witnesses stating they saw them check out the social media pages of Chick. As one can see, it would prove fairly difficult to convince someone that the investment firm discriminated against Chick.

Looking at the possibility that the investigation on discrimination could gather evidence of their examination of the social media pages belonging to Chick, they would then have to see if their actions were based solely on the fact that Chick's religion went against their company, brand, or image. Also one has to look at what religion is under Title VII. Title VII defends all characteristics of religious observance and practice as well as faith and outlines religion very generally for determinations of defining what the law covers.

Pertaining to Title VII, religion includes not only outmoded, systematized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, but also religious beliefs that are novel, infrequent, not part of an official church or sect, only contributed to by a minor number of people, or that seem irrational or arbitrary to others.

An employee's or potential employee's belief or practice can be considered "religious" under Title VII even if the employee is associated with a religious group that does not advocate or distinguish that individual's belief or practice, or even adherence to it. Title VII's protections also expand to those who are differentiated against or need accommodation because they acknowledge no religious beliefs. Understanding this, they did discriminate against Chick based on her religious affiliation, therefore this falls into the "religion" category of discrimination.

An employer or in this case, potential employer, may not base hiring choices on stereotypes and assumptions. The investment firm assumed Chick would be a certain way based on her religious affiliations. They did not find any other things, besides her professional name to deem her unqualified. As far as they are concerned, she was reasonably qualified until they examined her social media pages. There are some exceptions to the rule however.

If the investment firm was a religious organization, Under Title VII, religious organizations are allowed to give employment partiality to members of their own religion. Since the investment firm is not a religious organization, this does not apply. Therefore their decisions can hold up against court if there is proof their decision to not hire Chick was based on her religion. Title VII's prohibition against disparate treatment based on religion commonly works like its proscription against dissimilar treatment based on race, color, sex, or national origin.

Disparate treatment disrupts the statute whether the modification is encouraged by bias against or partiality toward an interviewee or employee due to his/her religious beliefs, practices, or observances -- or lack thereof. The investment company deciding based on examination of Chick's social media pages makes it illegal for them to not hire her. They not only assumed how she would behave, but they did it based on religious affiliation.

Although the manner in which they did it would be difficult to prove and examine in court, if somehow the evidence was there, Chick could sue the company and win against them for unlawful discrimination based on religion as observed under title VII.

If the investment advising firm would have just not recruited her based on her name, which they could have, they would not be held liable for employee discrimination as not hiring or firing someone based solely on their name is not grounds for violating Title VII as it pertains only to sex, age, religion, color, race, disability, and not name. The company was wrong to not hire Chick based on assumptions they.