Posted: September 12th, 2022

BUSINESS MEMO

BUSINESS MEMO ( 10 pts )….Students will be asked to complete a Business
Memo following a format discussed in class on an assigned business/law topic.
Memos are expected to professionally convey a response to a question posed by a
superior asking for business and legal advice. Such response will demonstrate not
only awareness of professional format and style, but also solid business and legal
support for responses and suggestions made. Such support will include, but is not
limited to, relevant legal support, sound business and legal reasoning, and a solid
analysis of options given your findings with reasons for your conclusions. Topics
will be discussed and assigned in class.
Topic: TENTS THAT MAKE YOU GO OUCH
From: Gabe Garnica, CEO Wonderful Tent Company, Inc.
To: ( you put your name plus Staff Attorney )
Date: 12/1/22
Re: The TUV Cases
As you know we are currently facing three lawsuits from customers injured by
our tents. The Tillis case involves the woman, Anne Tillis (AT) who was injured
when our 10 x 10 canopy tent collapsed on her during a picnic, causing her to
break her arm. We have evidence that AT switched the metal rods that hold up
the tent because she believed that they allowed her to make the tent higher. The
Unger case involves a man, Felix Unger (FU) who was injured when our 12 x 12
gazebo became engulfed in smoke causing him to faint due to smoke inhalation.
Evidence shows that FU works as an associate at Cabella’s, that outdoor store
where he is Helpant Manager of the Tent Department. Apparently FU put his
grill inside the gazebo trying to grill during a rain storm despite the fact that any
expert in tents would know that you cannot grill inside a gazebo. FU argues that
our instructions were missing from the tent which I will admit is true so that might
be a problem. I need you to find a way that we can avoid losing to FU if possible.
Finally, the Victor case involves Aliana Victor AV), the woman who was injured
when our 10 x 15 Family Tent fell on her five years ago. She began her lawsuit
last year and my belief is that she will lose because she cannot tell the court how
or why the tent was defective which makes her case weak in my opinion. What
do you think? Can you find a way for us to avoid losing to AV? To summarize
then:
1. Does AT have a case against us and why or why not?
2. Does FU have a case against us and why or why not?
3. Does AV have a case against us and why or why not?
ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES
FORMAT: As discussed in class, you should follow the format shown in
class and copied below. The heading must be identical to the one
shown with obvious difference in having the correct names and dates
and items etc. The first paragraph should present the applicable law to
the questions posed in 5-7 total sentences. The second paragraph
should apply that law to the facts given in 5-10 sentences. I say 5-10
because if you choose you can include your conclusions in this
paragraph at the end. Finally, if you prefer, you can have a third
paragraph separately presenting your conclusions which would be 4-7
sentences.
APPLICABLE LAW: As noted above, the first paragraph would deal with
applicable law which you should find from your slides. There is no real
need to use the textbook unless you want to and you should not, under
any circumstances, use outside law sources such as the internet etc.
Again, this law should be presented in 4-7 sentences.
APPLYING LAW TO FACTS: The second paragraph should be where you
apply the law in paragraph 2 to the facts given. You must be careful not
to miss any relevant issue, fact, or question posed. Again, we are
talking about 4-7 sentences for that.
Conclusions: Either in paragraph 2 or a separate paragraph 3 if you
choose, you must present your final conclusions on the questions
posed.
SAMPLE MEMO FROM ME: Below is a sample memo I
used as a model last semester. This will give you an idea of
what we are talking about.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joshua Miller, CEO, Outdoor Pools, Inc.
FROM: GABRIEL GARNICA, Staff Attorney, Outdoor Pools, Inc.
DATE: 5/1/22
RE: THE QUESTIONS POSED ON THE WALLACE CASE
According to Federal Labor Law, an employer cannot discriminate
against an employee’s language fluency based on that employee’s
nationality. Wallace is claiming that we did not hire him because he was
not born in a Latin country and therefore his Spanish is not fluent on
that basis. You admitted that this was your main reason and apparently
have stated it publicly and online a few times. Under the ADA, an
employer cannot discriminate against an employee’s disability in hiring
or promoting that person once he or she is an employee. However,
being afraid of the water is not considered a disability per se. Finally,
under the EEOC and Title VII, a business can claim business necessity
where it can show that its actions in not hiring or promoting someone
were based solely on a verifiable and genuine business necessity.
Here, Wallace was born in the Bronx and has passed a Spanish fluency
exam with a score of 97. Neither of his parents nor any family member
were born in a Latin country, but that does not matter given his obvious
Spanish fluency. You may not believe that his not being Latin will hurt
your efforts to create a Latin flavor to your pool business but that is not
relevant here. Wallace also claims that you did not hire him because he
is afraid of the water but that fear is not an accepted disability that is
protected. Finally, Wallace further argues that he was not hired as a
pool maintenance tech because he cannot swim and, in fact, is very
uncomfortable around water. Obviously, we can claim that being a pool
tech demands that someone at least be able to be around water.
Swimming is not an issue since such techs never have to swim.
However, Wallace’s claim that we “ demand that someone be an Olympic
swimmer” are far-fetched here since, again, swimming is not the issue
but, rather, just being able to function near water which he cannot do.
On the basis of the above, I conclude that Wallace:
1. Has a strong claim against us on the fluency issue since
nationality cannot be used as a basis for language fluency
2. Has no claim against us on the fear of water per se since that is
not a protected disability if a real disability at all
3. Has no claim against us on his inability to swim since being able to
swim is not necessary but being able to at least function around
water is a genuine business necessity for a pool tech.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: custom written college papers, essay custom writer service writing paper, essay writer free generator, essay writing service online free, free essay typer, how to create a assignment