LAW

LAW

3 Questions each one no less then 250 wards

1- Age Discrimination. Beginning in 1986, Paul Rangel was a sales professional for pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (S-A). Rangel had satisfactory performance reviews until 2006, when S-A issued new expectations guidelines with sales call quotas and other standards that he failed to meet. After two years of negative performance reviews, Rangel—who was then more than forty years old—was terminated as part of a nationwide reduction of sales professionals who had not met the expectations guidelines. This sales force reduction also included younger workers. Did S-A engage in age discrimination? Discuss. [Rangel v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC, 507 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2013)] (See Employment Discrimination.)

2- Insider Trading. David Gain is the chief executive officer (CEO) of Forest Media Corp., which is interested in acquiring RS Communications, Inc. To initiate negotiations, Gain meets with RS’s CEO, Gill Raz, on Friday, July 12. Two days later, Gain phones his brother, Mark, who buys 3,800 shares of RS stock on the following Monday. Mark discusses the deal with their father, Jordan, who buys 20,000 RS shares on Thursday. On July 25, the day before the RS bid is due, Gain phones his parents’ home, and Mark buys another 3,200 RS shares. Over the next few days, Gain periodically phones Mark and Jordan, both of whom continued to buy RS shares. On August 5, RS refuses Forest’s bid and announces that it is merging with another company. The price of RS stock rises 30 percent, increasing the value of Mark’s and Jordan’s shares by nearly $660,000 and $400,000, respectively. Is Gain guilty of insider trading? What is required to impose sanctions for this offense? Could a court hold Gain liable? Why or why not? (See Securities Exchange Act of 1934.)

3- Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), in an effort to enhance player safety and reduce technology-driven home runs and other big hits, set a standard for nonwood baseball bats to ensure that aluminum and composite bats performed like wood bats. Marucci Sports, LLC, makes nonwood bats. Under the new standard, four of Marucci’s eleven products were decertified for use in high school and collegiate games. Marucci filed suit against the NCAA and the NFHS under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. At trial, Marucci’s evidence focused on injury to its own business. Did the NCAA and NFHS’s standard restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act? Explain. [Marucci Sports, LLC v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 751 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2014)] (See Section 1 of the Sherman Act.)

Answer preview

  1. Age Discrimination

As an employer, Sanofi-Aventis US, L.L.C., (the defendant) was legally entitled to issue guidelines relating to its sales representatives’ performance in a bid to restructure its business and enhance efficiency. In adherence to these new guidelines, poorly performing employees had their employment contracts terminated. Paul Rangel (the plaintiff) contended that he had consistently demonstrated excellent performance and thus termination of his employment was discriminatory and was informed not by…

(900 words)

Scroll to Top