Applying law and constitution to business thought responses | BECEU1135 Business Law And Ethics | University of Phoenix

Please respond to each prompt in at least 100 words. These are thought responses and will require no references, just your thoughts on the prompts.

Prompt 1:

According to a “Justia” law website, Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, 2020 WL 1847100 (Pa. April 13, 2020), is described as, ” four Pennsylvania businesses and one individual who sought extraordinary relief from Governor Wolf’s March 19, 2020 order compelling the closure of the physical operations of all non-life-sustaining businesses to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus disease.” These petitioners built more than one statutory and constitutional argument that challenged the Governor’s order, saying he lacked authority, and that if given authority, that it violated their constitutional rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court concluded that the Petitioners had no constitutional bases for their challenges and their claim for relief was denied. This is a perfect example of the harm principle in logic being used at the court level, which holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. Many questions can be asked concerning the result of this judgement. One is, should we relinquish our constitutional rights if it’s to save the lives of ourselves or others?

Prompt 2:

I watched a segment on the news just last week about several black McDonald’s franchisees suing over racial discrimination. The former franchisees are claiming that the corporation denied them the same opportunities as white franchisees. McDonald’s is of course denying the allegations and state that they believe their minority relations are better than ever before. The former franchisees are claiming that there are less than half the amount of minority franchisees than white franchisees now than there were thirty years ago.

The case is relatively new and I do not believe it has moved into the courts just yet. I would think that McDonald’s would do it’s best to try and settle before going to court simply to save face and avoid large legal fees. If it were to reach the court stage I would think that it could be handled at the state level, however, because McDonald’s is a international company, I’m not sure exactly which state would have jurisdiction over the case.

I do think that if the issue isn’t resolved out of court that it could possibly end up in federal court because there are a lot of different states that could potentially be involved and based on the nature of the issue itself.