Sample Case Study Paper on Three Questions

  • A company’s board of directors must exercise due care and execute operations in the best interest of the organization. This is reflected on how directors supervise and evaluate performance. The duty of care requires that members act prudently to avoid any conflicting interests or fraudulent actions. The duty of loyalty regards the board acting in its capacity to represent the company in good faith in the realization of the strategic goals; hence, there are no private benefits. This is done by developing policies, executing plans, and solving issues promptly. Thus, a company’s vision is effectively achieved by proper planning, resource utilization, and the protection of public interest.
  • The business judgment rule refers to judicial endorsement in regards to decisions made by corporate board. The court has no objection to such decisions if they are made in good faith and to the sole interest of the company. However, the court may decide to replace a corporate decision if the members act fraudulently, in breach of the fiduciary duty or else make irrational decisions. This rule relates to the duty of care, which requires board members to make sound decisions in the best interest of the company. A corporate opportunity refers to any business prospect that may be exploited to benefit the company. The executive members are obliged to identify, evaluate, and undertake projects that guarantee positive corporate yields. The appraisal of corporate opportunities relates to the duty of good faith in which board members have a fiduciary duty to protect a company’s interests by not using the information for personal gain.
  • The case Brown v. Halbert explains the fiduciary duty that directors owe minority shareholders in that the decision to dispose total shareholding at a higher price should have been disclosed. The defendant sold his majority shareholding without informing the minority shareholders, a decision that was in violation of fiduciary duty in view that the sale was made to benefit one party. Thus, his conduct was unethical since he acted greedily to defraud innocent shareholders whose shares were bought cheaply.

Q 2.

  • Employment at-will relates to the understanding that employers make decisions on who to hire or fire with no standard guiding principle. This means that the employer or the employee might terminate the service at will without being compelled to give reasons. As such, employers’ fire inefficient employees in an attempt to enhance performance and improve operations for self-gain. In this regards, employment laws do not prohibit employers from firing an employee without providing reasonable explanations. As such, unless the legal system safeguards public policy by preventing wrongful employment termination, employers continue to fire staffs at will. Employers can terminate employees’ service whenever there is no implied contract. Thus, employment at-will doctrine appreciates that employers are left to terminate an employee’s service without giving good reasons. However, a number of employers have in place the conditions that would amount to dismissal to avoid corrupting the public policy. The doctrine further regards employees being employed at will and would cease to be members of an organization if they so choose to terminate the employment.
  • Public employees and the employees with individual as well as union contracts are protected from employment dismissal by laws such as the Civil Service Reform Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act. These individuals are only dismissed after all procedures are carried out to determine the cause and the impact of such terminations. As well, public employees are considered to have a property interest in their jobs, thereby giving them the right to the due process that exhibit major restrictions on wrongful dismissals.

Q 3.

Fair and equal treatment is an employment law that protects individuals from unjust conducts due to race, color, gender, disability, or nationality. The law seeks to protect the hiring, training, employee support and dismissal aspects against any actions that would amount to harassment. The understanding is that employers should comply with reasonable accommodation principle in which they are obligated to allow qualified persons to perform the available job. The reasonable accommodation is determined in respect to company resources, where the person employed should not commit resources to undue hardships, but rather perform like a reasonable person.

The case at hand involves a Coca cola Enterprises employee, Willis, who after developing health issues called to inform her supervisor. In their conversation, there seems to be miscommunication that led to unfair decisions being made by both parties. Willis thought she had adequately informed her supervisor that she was ill and pregnant at the same time, thereby necessitation a medical release. However, the supervisor got it wrong when he took Willis’ Wednesday’s medical appointment to mean the following day, thus regarding her stay away from work unacceptable. The supervisor acted in a manner to discriminate against Willis on the basis she was sick, hence giving her a valid claim. The Coca cola Enterprises should respond by stating the act was stipulated on the No Call/No Show policy in which Willis was aware to consider her inaction as resignation. Thus, Willis rights to reparation may be absorbed by the fact that she never met the supervisor during that period to give details that would accord her a medical release.