Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 195
  • Published: October 6, 2012
Read full document
Text Preview
Question #1:
Please read Problem 3 at the end of Chapter 17 regarding the lawsuit by alleged thief Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store. Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbels is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney's? Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not? Did the Gimbels security woman allow DiDomenico to assist in her store? Agency theory turns on a few items in a balancing act: (i) who pays Didomenico? (ii) was he allowed on the property to assist with the shoplifting? Mr. Mapp, assuming Mr. DiDomenico as a generic store security guard, would use the theory of respondeat superior to claim that Gimbels is liable for his injuries sustained. This theory states the employers/principals are responsible for the conduct of their employees, assuming they are acting in the scope of their employment. However, Mr. Mapp’s approach to this theory would not be successful because Mr. DiDomenico is an employee of J.C. Penney’s and not an employee of Gimbels. Gimbels never hired DiDomenico so him acting upon himself to apprehend Mr. Mapp is not part of his scope of employment. The only way Gimbels would be responsible for Mr. Mapp’s injuries would be if DiDomenico were an actual employee for the company and, the attack would then be related to the duties of the employment and the assault would have then occurred within work-related limits of time and place. In the passage it clearly states that Ms. Federchok “[did not] request his assistance”. J.C.Penney pays Mr. DiDomenico, and he stepped over his boundary by purusing Mr. Mapp after he left J.C.Penney. Mr. DiDomenico should not have been allowed to assist with the shoplifting, because he was acting outside of his scope of employment and his assault, or any actions for that matter, would not be within work-related limits, especially because any subsequent events would take place on unauthorized premises during working hours.

The below dilemma is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to real people is purely coincidental. The Lemon Tree is a publicly traded company which has 2,900 employees and operates out of Tallahassee, Florida. It produces and packages for resale products using lemon, including toiletries, foodstuffs, bathroom cleaning products and paint and nail polish removers. All of its products incorporates the use of a highly secret chemical formula derived from fresh lemons, grown on trees right on the grounds of the company. Only 3 people in the company have access to the secret formula, the CEO, Smitty Smiles, the head of Research, Paul Peel, and the chemist, Peter Dragon, also known as "Puff." Puff has a drug problem. Now, granted, it was in his past, and he has passed 3 out of the past 5 drug tests performed by the company. The two failed tests were chalked up to a "fluke" as a result of some chemicals he'd been working on. Puff successfully completed a drug rehab program in 1985, which the company paid for. His doctor at the time announced that he was cured. Paul has recommended that Puff be fired after both of the failed drug tests, but Puff fought the recommendations through the HR ADA committee, and won both times. One of the other members of a different branch of the research team, Jackie Paper, is good friends with Puff. Jackie underwent a sex change operation 5 years ago, and is now a woman, although she was a man when she was first hired in the company 8 years ago. She is also Asian, and considers herself, as a female minority, in a protected class which is routinely treated unfairly. Recently she filed a complaint with the company compliance department that she felt she had been passed over for a promotion due to her sex change status, and because she is an Asian female. That is currently under investigation. Some of her comments about her boss, Mary, have been less than flattering to her, including allegations that Mary and...
tracking img