Author Question: A company hired independent contractors to sell their products door-to-door. One sales rep, who had ... (Read 176 times)

james · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

A company hired independent contractors to sell their products door-to-door. One sales rep, who had a criminal history, assaulted a customer, who sued the parent company. The company was not liable because the sales rep was an independent contractor.
a. True
b. False
Indicate whether the statement is true or false

Question 2

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act was enacted in 1972 to reduce incidental killing and injury of marine mammals during commercial fishing operations. Under the act, commercial fishing vessels are required to allow an employee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to accompany the vessels to conduct research and observe operations. In December 1986, after NOAA had adopted a new policy of recruiting female as well as male observers, NOAA notified Caribbean Marine Services Co that female observers would be assigned to accompany two of the company's fishing vessels on their next voyages. The owners and crew members of the ships (the plaintiffs) moved for an injunction against the implementation of the NOAA directive. The plaintiffs contended that the presence of a female on board a fishing vessel would be very awkward, because the female would have to share the crew's quarters, and crew members enjoyed little or no privacy with respect to bodily functions. Further, they alleged that the presence of a female would be disruptive to fishing operations, because some of the crew members were crude men with little formal education who might harass or sexually assault a female observer, and the officers would therefore have to devote time to protecting the female from the crew. Finally, the plaintiffs argued that the presence of a female observer could destroy morale and distract the crew, thus affecting the crew's efficiency and decreasing the vessel's profits.

momtoalll · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

FALSE

Answer to Question 2

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. Here you have to analyze the nature of the tradeoff being madethat is, what rights are being traded off to obtain other rights? Obviously, the rights of the vessel owners and crew are significant. Costs would have to be incurred to renovate crews' quarters to accommodate female passengers. The male crew members would have to modify their habits, given the presence of females on board the ship. Disruption in normal procedures aboard the vessel would almost certainly occur, at least to some extent. In this and many other similar situations, rights of business owners and employees or potential employees must be sacrificed to implement the goal of equal employment opportunity. If women are not allowed on the ship, they are being denied equal employment opportunity by the NOAA. Creating exceptions to the policy of equal employment opportunity simply because it causes inconvenience or economic disadvantages for employers or business owners would only perpetuate employment inequality and frustrate the purpose of equal employment opportunity laws and the policy underlying them.
2. The reasoning applied to question 1 applies here also. There is no perceptible reason (at least, to the authors of this manual) that the fact a voyage may last three months instead of two weeks would alter the fundamental nature of the issue.
3. Although the presence of a female in the common areas of the vessel may affect the male crew's customary habits and practices, neither the Constitution nor case law interpreting constitutional provisions holds, or has ever held, that males have a constitutional right to exclusively male company in the workplace.