Follow instructions to the letter.

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

**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,



Donley, N. (2018). Don’t let EPA and Monsanto hide the truth on Roundup.
The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from

Hasl-Kelchner, H. (2006). Appendix B – The ABCs of Legal Literacy. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from

Kelland, K. (2017). Glyphosate: WHO cancer agency edited out. Reuters.
Retrieved 7 February 2018, from

Sheridan, K. (2017). Monsanto’s Controversial Weed Killer Roundup Does Not
Cause Cancer, New Study Shows. Newsweek. Retrieved 7 February 2018, from

**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

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.


Hasl-Kelchner, Hanna (03/2006). The Business Guide to Legal Literacy: What
Every Manager Should Know About The Law. Retrieved by:

EEOC Sues IHOP Chain for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation. (2017,
September 21). Retrieved February 7, 2018, from

Reuters Staff. (2010, December 30). IHOP pancake chain drops suit against
IHOP church. Retrieved February 07, 2018, from

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 6-12hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now

Do you have an upcoming essay or assignment due?

All of our assignments are originally produced, unique, and free of plagiarism.

If yes Order Paper Now