reply to 2 peer intial posts

User Generated

rzv_xvfn

Business Finance

Description

*Instructions*: Replies to classmates must be substantive, at least 150 words and incorporate concepts and materials that you have learned this week. All sources used must be cited. REPLIES ARE DIRECTLY TO THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT.



**STUDENT 1: MacKinsey**



In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessed glyphosate, a key ingredient of Roundup, as a Group 2a carcinogen (Kelland, 2017). This assessment implies negligence on behalf of Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto. According to Hasl-Kelchner (2006), negligence is a form of product liability (p. 15). Hasl-Kelchner further defines negligence as “a private or civil wrong … that results from a breach of a legal duty.” (p. 15). This breach of legal duty is only negligence if Monsanto had some knowledge of the potential dangers of their product. Without that knowledge this case would actually be strict liability, which Hasl-Kelchner defines as “liability without fault” (p.16). The purpose of strict liability is to ensure companies make sure their products are safe before they are put up for sale. The discussion of whether this example is negligence or strict liability may be moot since in November 2017 the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) published their study of 50,000 users of pesticides. In this study, the NCI “didn’t find any association between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, and most cancers. Only “some evidence” supported a link between the chemical and one particular type of cancer, acute myeloid leukemia. Even that association was not statistically significant.” (Sheridan, 2017). Even IARC’s conclusions have been called into questioned since the original draft of their findings was found to be altered. A Reuters investigation found 10 changes made from the draft where “a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumours was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one.” (Kelland, 2017). Since the IARC is the only national or international agencies to label glyphosate a probable carcinogen, and its published findings appear to contradict its original findings, there appears to be no actual negligence on Monsanto’s part. Despite evidence to the contrary, California is still trying to pass legislation requiring Monsanto to label Roundup as cancer causing (Donley, 2018).



-Mac



Reference



Donley, N. (2018). Don’t let EPA and Monsanto hide the truth on Roundup. The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/articl...



Hasl-Kelchner, H. (2006). Appendix B - The ABCs of Legal Literacy. Ezproxy.apus.edu. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://ebooks.ap...



Kelland, K. (2017). Glyphosate: WHO cancer agency edited out. Reuters. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-repor...



Sheridan, K. (2017). Monsanto’s Controversial Weed Killer Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, New Study Shows. Newsweek. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from http://www.newsweek.com/monsanto-weed-killer-round...



**STUDENT 2: Marcel**



One company that has been in the news over the past few months is IHOP and it wasn’t for anything positive. In fact, this situation deals with the legal topic of employment. According to Hasl-Kelchner (2006), “As managers rise through the organizational ranks, the number of employees reporting to them increases and they find more and more of their time being consumed by employment matters” (p. 19). One of those matter includes the basis for employee suits and for this case, harassment. Per the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017) their lawsuit against 9 IHOP restaurants claims:



The defendants subjected employees to a hostile work environment based on sex and took no corrective action when the employees complained to local management about the harassment. The defendants also took retaliatory action against some of the employees who complained about the harassment including reducing work hours and termination. The defendants' written sexual harassment policy, which required complaints to be made to the corporate office in writing within 72 hours of the harassing incident, does not shield defendants from liability where local managers were on notice of the harassment yet took no action (p. 1).



The biggest mistake in a situation like this by the employer(s), is the fact that no action or investigation was being conducted. Instead, the employees were “punished” for complaining about being harassed. This is an instance where there were multiple chances for management to step in, but failed to do so.



Going back a few more years, IHOP had once claimed a trademark infringement suit against a church using the same acronym. According to our text, Hasl-Kelchner (2006) mentions trademarks as part of intellectual property among other items such as patents, etc. and referenced that trademark infringement specifically is based on, “similarity of the mark with respect to appearance, sound, connotation, and impression” among other issues (pp. 29-31). Per the Reuters Staff and website (2010), IHOP accused the church of knowing what they were doing, caused confusion, and “misappropriated IHOP trademarks” (p. 1). They would eventually drop the lawsuit, but in IHOP’s defense they were only doing their legal duty as a trademark holder.



References



Hasl-Kelchner, Hanna (03/2006). The Business Guide to Legal Literacy: What Every Manager Should Know About The Law. Retrieved by: http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://ebooks.ap...



EEOC Sues IHOP Chain for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation. (2017, September 21). Retrieved February 7, 2018, from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-21-17...



Reuters Staff. (2010, December 30). IHOP pancake chain drops suit against IHOP church. Retrieved February 07, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/ihop-lawsuit/ihop-...

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Hi MacKinsey,
Your post is quite informational regarding negligence and strict liability by companies. From the
case you have given concerning Monsanto, a Roundup’s manufacturer, I agree the company can
be found guilty of negligence if the manufacturer company was aware of the possible dangers
their products had. But if the company had no information regarding the potential dangers, then
Monsanto is guilty of strict liability. Negligence is a form of product liability and is private
wrong resulting from breach of legal duty (Hasl-Kelchner , 2006). Charging companies with
strict liability propels the companies to ensure their products are risk-free before selling them.
On the other hand, there is an arguable discussion regarding whether the case of Monsanto is
negligence or strict liability as there is no evidence yet on the link between glyphospate
ingredient in the Roundup and cancer. Only acute myeloid leukemia had a connection as per
some source which is not yet substant...


Anonymous
Great content here. Definitely a returning customer.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags