1. Page 181, Question 7-8 In Your Court: Criminal Liability and Sentencing. Gavin, a fifteen-year-old student, was eating lunch on the grounds of a school. He threw a half-eaten apple toward the outside wall of a classroom some distance away. The apple sailed through a slowly closing door and struck a teacher who was in the room. The teacher was knocked to the floor and lost consciousness for a few minutes. Gavin was charged with assault by “any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.” Gavin stated that he did not intend to hit the teacher but only intended to see the apple splatter against the outside wall. Assume that you are one of the judges on the appellate court panel reviewing this case and answer the following questions. (See Criminal Liability.) 1. What are the two elements of criminal liability? Are both elements present in this case? 2. The trial court convicted Gavin, among other things, to send a message to his classmates that his actions were wrong. Is this a sufficient reason, in itself, to convict a defendant such as Gavin? Why or why not?

Miller, Roger LeRoy. Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of the Legal Environment Today (p. 181). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.

2. Page 247, Question 10-2

10–2. Doing Business Internationally. Macrotech, Inc., develops an innovative computer chip and obtains a patent on it. The firm markets the chip under the trade-marked brand name “Flash.” Macrotech wants to sell the chip to Nitron, Ltd., in Pacifica, a foreign country. Macrotech is concerned, however, that after an initial purchase, Nitron will duplicate the chip, pirate it, and sell the pirated version to computer manufacturers in Pacifica. To avoid this possibility, Macrotech could establish its own manufacturing facility in Pacifica, but it does not want to do this. How can Macrotech, without establishing a manufacturing facility in Pacifica, protect Flash from being pirated by Nitron? (See Doing Business Internationally.) 10–3. Dumping. Nuclear power plants use low-enriched uranium


Miller, Roger LeRoy. Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of the Legal Environment Today (p. 247). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.


3. Page 434, Question 16-2 Spotlight on Coca Cola—Family and Medical Leave Act. Jennifer Willis worked for Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc. (CCE), in Louisiana as a senior account manager. On a Monday in May 2003, Willis called her supervisor to tell him that she was sick and would not be able to work that day. She also said that she was pregnant, but she did not say she was sick because of the pregnancy. On Tuesday, she called to ask where to report to work and was told that she could not return without a doctor’s release. She said that she had a doctor’s appointment on “Wednesday,” which her supervisor understood to be the next day. Willis meant the following Wednesday. For more than a week, Willis did not contact CCE. When she returned to work, she was told that she had violated CCE’s “No Call/No Show” policy. Under this policy “an employee absent from work for three consecutive days without notifying the supervisor during that period will be considered to have voluntarily resigned.” She was fired. Willis filed a suit in a federal district court against CCE under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must inform an employer of the reason for the leave. Did Willis meet this requirement? Did CCE’s response to Willis’s absence violate the FMLA? Explain. [Willis v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., 445 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2006)] (See Family and Medical Leave.) 16–3. Minimum Wage. Misty Cumbie worked

Miller, Roger LeRoy. Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of the Legal Environment Today (p. 434). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.

4. Page 456, Question 17-9

A Question of Ethics—Discrimination Based on Disability. Titan Distribution, Inc., employed Quintak, Inc., to run its tire mounting and distribution operation in Des Moines, Iowa. Robert Chalfant worked for Quintak as a second-shift supervisor at Titan. He suffered a heart attack in 1992 and underwent heart bypass surgery in 1997. He also had arthritis. In July 2002, Titan decided to terminate Quintak. Chalfant applied to work at Titan. On his application, he described himself as having a disability. After a physical exam, Titan’s doctor concluded that Chalfant could work in his current capacity, and he was notified that he would be hired. Despite the notice, Nadis Barucic, a Titan employee, wrote “not pass px” at the top of Chalfant’s application, and he was not hired. He took a job with AMPCO Systems, a parking ramp management company. This work involved walking up to five miles a day and lifting more weight than he had at Titan. In September, Titan eliminated its second shift. Chalfant filed a suit in a federal district court against Titan, in part, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Titan argued that the reason it had not hired Chalfant was not that he did not pass the physical, but no one—including Barucic—could explain why she had written “not pass px” on his application. Later, Titan claimed that Chalfant was not hired because the entire second shift was going to be eliminated. [Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc., 475 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2007)] (See Discrimination Based on Disability.) 1. What must Chalfant establish to make his case under the ADA? Can he meet these requirements? Explain. 2. In employment-discrimination cases, punitive damages can be appropriate when an employer acts with malice or reckless indifference to an employee’s protected rights. Would an award of punitive damages to Chalfant be appropriate in this case? Discuss.

Miller, Roger LeRoy. Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of the Legal Environment Today (p. 456). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.