Shareholder Voting Rights Law

Summary

The law of the state of incorporation governs shareholder voting rights, so Delaware law applies to Failsafe Insurance Inc. Under the cats paw doctrine, an employer can be liable for discrimination if influenced by an employees bias, even without intent. Copyright infringement requires access and copying; without access, theres no infringement.

Full Conversation

Matt and Bethany work at Warehouse Analytics. Matt is worried that Bethany, from Columbia, may be promoted instead of Matt once their supervisor retires. Not willing to work under someone of Colombian descent, Matt informs their supervisor that Bethany has been sharing trade secrets with friends outside of work. Warehouse Analytics terminates Bethany without investigating the truth of Matt’s allegations. Even though Warehouse Analytics had no discriminatory intent, could the business still be held liable for discrimination? Group of answer choices No, because Matt’s fraudulent actions means only he can be held liable. Yes, because employers are strictly liable for the actions of their employees. Yes, pursuant to the cats paw doctrine. No, because Warehouse Analytics did not intend to discriminate.
In this scenario, Warehouse Analytics could potentially be held liable under the "cat's paw" doctrine. This legal concept allows an employer to be held liable for discrimination if a decision-maker is influenced by the discriminatory bias of another employee, even if the employer itself did not have discriminatory intent.
Emily wrote a poem in * and posted it online. In *, Taylor wrote a song that included some of the same word combinations. However, Taylor had never read the poem. Does Emily have a valid cause of action against Taylor for copyright infringement? Group of answer choices No, because Taylor did not copy Emily’s work. No, because Taylor’s work was a musical work and Emily’s work was a literary work. Yes, because Emily wrote her poem first. Yes, because Emily published her work original work online.
For Emily's situation, the correct answer would be:
No, because Taylor did not copy Emily’s work.
Copyright infringement requires that the infringing party had access to the original work and copied it, even if unconsciously. Since Taylor never read Emily's poem, there's no basis for infringement due to lack of access.