According to the judgment, Dracca cannot recover the equipment or the money from Silvia Gray alone. This is because Gray was not doing business as a sole proprietor but was in partnership with other members of BB Partnership. It is therefore not within the law for Dracca to seek the pay from Gray individually. The law of business partnership states that all partners should be responsible for any liability that the firm is facing and should not be left for an individual.
Generally, in a partnership contract, each of the partnership members is jointly responsible with the partnership for any obligation for the partnership. In this regard, there is no way Gray should be responsible for the failure by the BB Partnership to pay for the amount ruled in favor of Dracca by the court. In many circumstances, each member is jointly and mostly accountable for omissions or wrongful deeds of a fellow partner. For example, in this situation, if the partnership failed to settle the payment, then Dracca should file another case suing the company for failure to abide by the court judgment (Zavaletta, 2011).
The business legal act for any partnership states further that despite the fact that a partner may be sued in court on an individual capacity for all the damages he or she has committed, the partnership contracts usually allow for the partner to be indemnified for the damage sections in excess of his or her individual proportional share. For example, in the United States, a partnership member is jointly and mostly accountable for obligations and debts of the partnership. However, before the partnership creditor can impose ruling on a single partner, there are some conditions which must be fulfilled. A member may just consent that the company does not need to drain out all its assets before moving forward to get full information on a fellow business partner. Last but not least, a court may make a ruling for an individual partner to settle the arrears to the creditor just to fulfill the obligation of the partnership (Bagley, 2012).
Therefore, Dracca should just go back to the court to seek for a court ruling to force Gray to pay him if other partners agree together. This will be a better way to show togetherness and resolve the case amicably.
The board of directors did not fulfill the duty of care to shareholders when they sued Silvia Gray individually for the BB Partnership judgment. This is because as a partnership, they should have sat down and look for the way forward on how to settle the matter without implicating a single person. The BB Partnership is not for Gray alone and everyone in the board of directors is responsible for the debts they owe other people. There should be a well designed dispute settling process that allows for the partners to agree mutually for an individual partner to settle the debt either individually or as a whole (Zavaletta, 2011).
The business judgment rule says that all officers are protected from any liability caused due to losses incurred on if the actions were done in a good manner. But because Dracca had been dealing with BB transaction for a long duration, sufficient diligence was required since Dracca was a long business vendor and partner of BB Partnership.
This would be the best to resolve the case instead of leaving it for Gray to settle the debts. The boards of directors have in themselves gone against the partnership rule, which states that all partners are responsible for any of the business liabilities. Gray should not allow for this to happen to her and should seek legal address on the business judgment ruling for the court to determine whether the BB Partnership should leave the debts to be settled by Gray alone (Bagley, 2012).
On the other hand, the board of directors in applying with the business judgment rule should have requested Gray to settle the debts instead of suing her. It could be the best move to resolve the dispute as the way the board of directors has chosen could lead to fall out in the partnership.
Yes, Long can sue Dracca for employment discrimination. This is an embarrassing act that cannot be allowed within a workplace since he had never allowed his sexuality interfere with his mandates as a worker in the company. Employment discrimination has many side effects, which can even lead to the decrease in the companys revenue and EEOC is against this discrimination act. According to the legal laws in any country, there is no act or section of the employers act that allows for employer discrimination. It is illegal and can be punishable in a court of law. There are different forms of employer discrimination, such as racial, tribal, sexual or gender. From this perspective, Long should not be discriminated in relation to his sexuality.
Long can effectively argue a constructive discharge for this act in the court of law and BB Partnership can pay dearly for their act on him. Legal principles are against employment discrimination and any employer found discriminating a worker can be held accountable. The main legal principles include equal treatment, work-life balance, etc. As a matter of fact, Long should seek legal address through court to resolve this issue effectively. It is indeed an illegal act that is not to be allowed in the current century.
Dracca can fire Kate if he wishes but it is not the best way to do so. In real sense, Kate might have sympathized with Long for the treatment he received from Dracca. It might not be the best way to go but the decision remains on Dracca. However, the court can consider any retaliation claims in this case. Kate can go to court to seek legal address for the court to decide whether the retaliation against Kate was done in accordance with the law. This is against the law and should never be accepted in any workplace (Bagley, 2012).
From Hernandezs action, Dracca could face some legal and ethical ramifications in hiring only women. The first legal and ethical ramification he could face is being forced by a court of law through its judgment to overturn the appointment and make fresh appointment. This can be determined by the court of law if a complainant sues Dracca and his company (Boone, 2011).
The other legal and ethical ramification that Dracca could face is on employment discrimination. From the actions of Hernandez it is obvious that they discriminate people in terms of their gender. This is against the employment discrimination act, which calls for equal treatment and work-life balance. It is therefore upon Dracca to seek other options of either revoking Hernandez appointment or wait for the legal ruling by the ethics and law courts.
On the internal action, I recommend that Dracca should advice Hernandez and his workers to practice equal consideration in job recruitment without basing their evaluation on gender only. They should be fair while recruiting employees to ensure that they employ workers based on their qualification and not by gender, race or ethnic background (Boone, 2011).
On the other hand, the external action that Dracca should do is to try and convince the public and potential customers that his company will never repeat the same mistakes made by Hernandez. By doing this he will convince the customers to return back to the company and buy from them. This will increase their sales, which had been reduced due to the employment of women only in the company (Bagley, 2012).
The legal recommendation should be for Dracca to go to court and alter the possible courts implications on the matter. If it was gender discrimination, then he should assure the clients and customers through signing a legal agreement that his company will never be unfair in its recruitment. It is the best way to attract customers and ensure maximum sales for its equipment gain.