Legal Systems in Business
The historical law school believes that today`s societies should base their legal decisions on the examples of the past. Precedents would be more important than moral arguments. This was only the second time the Supreme Court had ruled on a sexual harassment case. Many feminist jurists feared that the court would raise the bar and make it harder to win hostile working conditions cases under Title VII. That did not happen. If the issue to be decided is combined with the court`s decision, we get the decision of the case. In the present case, the question referred by the Court and its answer lead to the conclusion that `a worker does not have to prove serious psychological harm in order to succeed in a case of sexual harassment in Title VII`. That finding is valid until the Court of First Instance takes up a similar question and answers it differently. It happens, but it rarely happens. But suppose an employer fired an employee for not committing perjury (lying on the witness stand in a court case); The employer wanted the employee to cover up the company`s criminal or unethical act. Suppose that, as in the previous cases, there are no applicable laws and no employment contract.
Courts based on a finding or precedent that “employers may terminate employees for any reason or no reason” could rule against an employee seeking termination compensation because he or she told the truth on the witness stand. Or it could make an exception to the general rule, such as: “Employers can generally fire employees for any reason or no reason without incurring legal liability; However, employers are held legally liable if they terminate an employee who refuses to lie on behalf of the employer in legal proceedings. “In contrast, procedural laws are the rules of courts and administrative authorities. They tell us what to do if there is a fundamental problem. For example, if you drive fifty-three miles per hour in a forty-mile-per-hour zone on Main Street on a Saturday night and receive a ticket, you have violated a substantial legal standard (the specified speed limit). How the court decides and what is decided is a matter of procedural law. They allow for higher economic productivity, which benefits society as a whole. Some systems are a mixed parliamentary/presidential structure. In France, for example, the president is far from being a mere titular head of state. Since 1962, he has been directly elected by the people, appoints the Prime Minister, has emergency powers and signs decrees resulting from the extensive legislative functions of the executive.
In cooperation with the government, he or she may submit bills to the people, which are adopted by referendum, bypassing parliament, dissolving the National Assembly and calling new elections. Business law standards include expectations of compliance with the laws of other countries, the distinction between unethical and lawful behaviour, and the establishment of social responsibility as a cornerstone of global citizenship. Recently, new areas of business law have had to deal with the effects of modern technology. In fact, because of its importance in this field, computer law is even a subspecialty of business law. We could look at existing laws, guidelines, which take the form of general rules to be followed in the nation-state or its subdivisions. Laws control judicial decisions or the common law, but are subject to (and are controlled by) constitutional law – decrees, regulations or court decisions – in a manner precise enough to know what the law says. For example, we could look at the published speed limits on most U.S. highways and conclude that the “right” or “right” speed does not exceed fifty-five miles per hour. Or we could look a little deeper and find out how the written law is usually enforced. In this way, we could conclude that sixty-one miles per hour are generally authorized by most state troops, but that sometimes someone receives a ticket for fifty-seven miles per hour within a fifty-five miles per hour zone. Both approaches are empirical, but not strictly scientific. The first approach, which examines exactly what the rule itself says, is sometimes called the “positivist” school of legal thought.
The second approach, based on the social context and actual behaviour of key law enforcement actors, is similar to the “legal realist” school of thought (see Section 1.2.3 “Other Schools of Legal Thought”). The business entity is generally considered to be a separate entity from its owners or employees. The concept is commonly referred to as “legal personality”. An old proverb of the law says that the law does not deal with trivialities or unimportant matters (Latin de minimis non curat lex). All the injustices you experience in life will not be a reason to take legal action. If you got up for a Saturday night date and feel embarrassed or humiliated, you can`t get anything back in court in the U.S. because there`s no cause of action (no basis in substantive law) you can use in your claim. If you are engaged and your future spouse is exempt from the marriage ceremony, some states provide a legal basis for legal action. The “violation of the promise of marriage” is recognized in several states, but most states have abolished this cause of action either by court order or by law. Whether a runaway bride or groom justifies a valid cause of action in court depends on whether the state`s courts recognize and still enforce that disappearing cause of action.
In a very fundamental – and very important – sense, McGovern`s reference to legal barriers to day-to-day business activities is welcome. In the United States, as in all complex societies, we have entrusted the government with the responsibility to adopt and enforce legal rules and principles. In doing so, we endorsed the formation of a legal system – the institutions and processes that actually apply our rules and principles (Roszkowski, 2002). This system works like any other because its key elements are stable and interact reliably. In other words, when applied consistently, the law is not always as flexible as it should be when it comes to doing what it is supposed to do, which is to preserve peace and stability so that members of society can continue their various social and economic activities. Nation-states also have constitutions. In addition to legislative, executive and judicial functions, state constitutions prescribe various rights of citizens. These rights may differ from and are in addition to the rights granted by the United States Constitution. Like laws and court decisions, specific provisions of a Constitution can provide people with a “cause of action” on which to base a claim (see section 1.4.3 “Pleas, Precedents and” on “Legal Arguments”). For example, the California Constitution provides that citizens of that state have the right to privacy. This has been used to make claims against companies that interfere with an employee`s right to privacy. In Rulon-Miller`s case, her employer, International Business Machines (IBM), said she should stop dating a former colleague who worked for a competitor.
When she refused, IBM fired her and a jury fined the company $300,000. As the California court noted, “Although an employee sacrifices certain privacy rights when entering the workplace, the employee`s expectation of privacy must be balanced against the interests of the employer… [T]he point here is privacy, like the other inalienable rights listed first in our Constitution. is undoubtedly a fundamental interest of our society. Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp., 162 Cal. App.3d 241, 255 (1984). Related to the CLS school, but different, is the ecofeminist school of legal thought. This school emphasizes – and would change – men`s long-standing dominance over women and the rest of the natural world. Ecofeminists would say that the same social mentality that leads to the exploitation of women is the root of male exploitation and the deterioration of the natural environment. They would say that male ownership of land has led to a “culture of domination” in which man is not so much a steward of the existing environment or of those who are “subordinate” to him, but is responsible for making everything he controls economically “productive.” Wives, children, land and animals are considered economic resources, and legal systems (until the nineteenth century) largely granted rights only to men owning land. Ecofeminists would say that even with the increase in women`s civil and political rights (such as the right to vote) and with the recognition of children`s and animals` rights and some nations` concern for the environment, the legacy of the past for most nations still affirms the primacy of “man” and his domination of nature and women.
