Scenario-based take-home test comprised of essay questions.

The final exam for this course is a scenario-based take-home test comprised of essay questions.
Download and save the final exam below. Answer the questions on the separate answer sheet and submit it to this assignment via Canvas.
The final exam is open-book/open-note; you can expect it will take 6-8 hours to complete. You need to do your own work; no outside sources are permitted (and you don't need anything other than the book and modules anyways).
COMPREHENSIVE FINAL EXAM• This examination is worth 300 points and is modeled after a traditional law schoolexamination. The point breakdown for each question is listed on the questionsthemselves.• The material in this test is based on the book contents, in class discussions/postings, andonline materials discussed during the course.• All facts in this scenario are “self-contained” in that if the facts are not part of the belowscenario they do not exist.• In addition, there is some intentional ambiguity in the scenario. When you are asked toanswer a question, and the facts are ambiguous, you should identify the ambiguity andexplain how the ambiguity impacts your ability to answer the question.• I expect clear and concise writing such that I can understand your answers. If I cannotunderstand your answers you will not get any points.• Your answers must be inline as part of this document. If you are answering #13, theanswer must be in the “Answer” section for question 13. If you are answering a sub partof a question, you must note which sub part you are answering. For example, if aquestion has 4 sub-parts, a, b, c, and d, be sure to label them as such in the answer block.• All answers should be your own work pursuant to the Maryville academic integritypolicy. All submissions will be checked with a tool that checks for plagiarism and ifI confirm any plagiarism then you will not get any points for the question thatcontains plagiarism.-----SCENARIO AND QUESTIONS----Bryan works for Greenthumb! Inc., as a landscaping and beautification laborer. On a bright,unusually warm sunny day in February, Bryan's supervisor directs Bryan to go Moody Park inFairview Heights, Illinois, and plant a row of trees along a property line between the Park andsome newly developed private residential homes. The supervisor indicated that the property linewas professionally surveyed a few days prior by the City of Fairview Heights EngineeringDivision, and that the engineers had marked the boundary line with large, 3-foot-tall orangestakes. Bryan knew that although the Engineering Division was usually good at markingboundary lines, there were some recent incidents where they were allowing interns to do themarking and the interns had made some mistakes. But, Bryan did not feel like that was hisproblem, and besides, he was paid to do landscaping, not to worry about property lines.Bryan arrived at Moody park, located the orange property line markers, and began carefulydigging holes only along the park side of the property line. As Bryan was digging the holes with a large shovel, the owner of the home and land on the otherside of the orange cones, who goes by Jennifer, ran out the back door of her house and beganfrantically yelling at Bryan that he was digging holes in Jennifer’s backyard and that Bryan wastrespassing. Jennifer then rapidly approached Bryan, got within 12 feet of him, and continued toscream at Bryan that he was to immediately leave her property. Bryan, confused by the rawdisplay of anger and vitriol, and being sure that he was on park property, did not move andinstead yelled back to Jennifer that he was on park property and that she was more than welcometo call the cops. Bryan’s comments caused Jennifer to fly into a rage. She rapidly approachedBryan and came within 2 feet of him before she continued to scream about him leaving herproperty, cursed Bryan’s good name, and made other offensive, shocking, and racist commentsabout Bryan’s mother and children. Bryan, normally pretty level headed, became enraged, andin a moment of anger, swung his shovel at Jennifer’s head. Although Bryan swung, he missed.As Jennifer jumped back in shock, she continued to scream at Bryan and mock him in a way thatquestioned his masculinity and ability to swing a shovel. Now further enraged, Bryan advancedon Jennifer and swung, this time not hitting Jennifer directly but coming close enough that theshovel brushed Jennifer’s clothing.Sensing the close call, Jennifer became very concerned for her safety and started to run back intoher home with the intention of calling the police. As she ran into her home, she tripped, fell, andlanded hard on her left elbow. Although Jennifer was not a doctor, she knew that she had eitherbroken or seriously injured her left elbow because she was unable to bend her left arm at theelbow without extreme pain. As Jennifer picked herself up off the ground, she turned around tosee if Bryan was following her. As she turned, she saw that Bryan had not followed her into herhome, and instead, was standing in the same spot as before but pointing at Jennifer and laughinghysterically.Jennifer, now consumed with a mix of embarrassment, rage, pain, and fear, continued to retreatuntil she was safely in her home. She began to call the police, but as she was dialing 911, herrage overwhelmed her and she decided she was going to take matters into her own hands andteach Bryan a lesson. Opening her gun safe, she withdrew her favorite firearm, a STI DVCTactical 2011 .45 ACP, and made sure it had a fully loaded magazine. Running back outside,kicking the safety off, and with adrenaline and pain coursing through her veins, she ran up toBryan, and with the gun a mere 10 inches from Bryan’s forehead, screamed at him to get off herproperty. Bryan realized at this point that he had brought a shovel to a gun fight, and seeing ashow he was not even very good at aiming a shovel, decided it was best to quickly retreat byrunning to his vehicle and driving away.As Bryan got about a block away, a police car appeared and pulled him over. The officers,initially just 2 but soon thereafter several more, initiated a felony stop by ordering Bryan out ofhis vehicle and onto the ground. Bryan, again deciding that it was best to comply, did as he wastold. Once the police handcuffed Bryan they attempted to ask him questions. Bryan,remembering what he had learned in his Maryville MBA business law class he was taking, saidthat he would not talk to the police without a lawyer. The police obliged, arrested Bryan, tookhim to the police station, and placed him in a holding cell until his $400 an hour attorney couldbe bothered to arrive at the jail. A few hours later, as Bryan was contemplating life, he lookedout his narrow glass window and saw Jennifer with her hands handcuffed in front of her and herleft elbow in an awkward looking sling. Bryan later asked one of the guards what had happened,and the guard stated that a neighbor had called the police when the screaming start and had also reported the incident with the gun when they saw Jennifer come running out of the housepointing a pistol at Bryan. The officer explained this is why they ultimately arrested both Bryanand Jennifer, since it appeared that both had committed crimes based on the evidence they had.After both Bryan and Jennifer sat in jail for a few days, they were both released on large personalrecognizance bonds. Both Bryan and Jennifer were very angry at what occurred and orderedtheir respective attorneys to file civil lawsuits against the other for “everything and anything”that their respective attorneys could come up with.In addition, after meeting with her lawyer, Jennifer went on Instagram and Twitter where sheproceeded to post her version of the events to the public, identified Bryan by name, stated thatBryan was an untrustworthy dirty rotten scoundrel who enjoys intimidating, threatening, andassaulting women, and that she in no way contributed to or exacerbated the situation leading toBryan’s actions. Lots of drama ensued and many of Bryan’s friends now think he is a monster.1. Jennifer sues Bryan for the intentional tort of trespass, and demands Bryan pay her$1,000,000 and that he stays off her land forever.a. Will Jennifer prevail in her demand for $1,000,000? Explain.b. Will Jenifer likely prevail in her demand that Bryan stay off her land forever?ExplainAnswer:2. Jennifer sues Bryan for the tort of assault and the tort of battery.a. Will Jennifer prevail in her claim that Bryan committed the tort of Assault? Why?b. Will Jennifer prevail in her claim that Bryan committed the tort of Battery? Why?Answer:3. Bryan sues Jennifer for defamation for her Instagram and Twitter posts regardingthe situation.a. What type of defamation case should Bryan bring against Jennifer for her posts?b. Based on your answer in #3a, will Bryan prevail in his claim against Jennifer? Answer:4. Jennifer’s lawsuit also names Greenthumb! as a defendant in her assault andbattery suit, and argues that Greenthumb! is liable for Bryan’s actions.a. Explain what principle(s) might allow Jennifer to successfully argue thatGreenthumb! is liable for Bryan’s actionsb. If you were Greenthumb!’s lawyers, what might you argue as to whyGreenthumb! is not responsible?Answer:5. The events that led both Bryan and Jennifer to end up in jail and ensnared inmultiple lawsuits took place in Fairview Heights, Illinois. Bryan, thinking that thejudges in Fairview Heights are weak, worried that jurors in the area will likely sidewith Jennifer, and knowing that juries in the City of St. Louis pay out large damageawards, asks his lawyer to file suit against Jennifer in the State of Missouri’s 22ndCircuit Court in downtown St. Louis.a. Will Bryan’s lawyer be able to file suit against Jennifer in the 22nd Circuit Court?Why?b. If both Bryan and Jennifer were residents of Fairview Heights Illinois, but wechange every other fact such that the entire incident happened in the City of St.Louis, would your answer change? Why?Answer:After getting out of jail and having a few weeks to reflect on what occurred, Jennifer and Bryanfinally have their first day in civil court. The Judge spends the first 15 minutes talking in whatappears to be code words to Bryan and Jennifer’s lawyers. Once done talking with the lawyers,the Judge looks to Bryan and Jennifer and asks if they are ready to proceed with their civil suit.He reminds them that this will be a jury trial, the trial will likely take 5 days, and because thecourt docket is full, the trial won’t start for about 6 months. Bryan, not liking what he hears,asks for a brief recess to talk to his lawyer.Bryan asks his lawyer what this is all going to cost him and is it really going to be 6 monthsuntil the trial starts? Bryan’s lawyer states that he expects to put in about 100 hours preparingfor the trial and initial motions, another 60 hours during the trial, and up to another 100 hours after the trial doing post-trial motions, any appeals, and other miscellaneous work. He alsomentions that trial is just the first phase, and since millions of dollars might be on the line, therewill likely be appeals and other matters that will stretch out this litigation for years. Bryan, notbeing a math major, remembers that the lawyer bills at $400 per hour, so figures that just thistrial is going to cost around $100,000. Bryan tells his lawyer he can’t afford to pay $100,000 forthis, and certainly can’t afford to pay even more for any appeals or other matters. Bryan’slawyer politely informs him that he would be happy to perform all for the services mentioned fora flat fee of only $35,000 (not to include appeals) and that he could certainly offer a paymentplan with a reasonable interest rate of only 18%. The lawyer opens his briefcase and pulls out acontract for Bryan to sign then and there, agreeing to the verbal terms. Bryan, feeling sick to hisstomach thinking about that kind of money, but feeling like he has no other choice, agrees to thelawyer’s offer and signs the contract without even reading it. His lawyer flashes a big grin andfiles the contract in his briefcase.While Bryan was having this conversation with his lawyer, Jennifer was having the sameconversation with her lawyer. However, Jennifer’s lawyer, being slightly more ethical andsympathetic to his client, suggests that instead of trial, perhaps Jennifer should consider bindingarbitration for the civil matters. Jennifer, who initially wanted sweet, sweet vengeance againstBryan, but now feeling exhausted and embarrassed by the whole affair (not to mention losing herjob when the story showed up on Facebook and in the local newspaper) just wants to put thiswhole thing behind her. Therefore, she agrees with her lawyer that binding arbitration is likelythe way to go since she can’t really afford a drawn out civil trial and does not have the “heart” togo through with this anymore.The Judge, growing impatient with all the side conversation, calls the courtroom to order andasks for the party’s decision on whether to proceed. Bryan tells the Judge that he wants to goforward with a civil trial while Jennifer says that she wants to try mediation or bindingarbitration. After the judge explains what it is and how it would work, Bryan thinks that it isprobably the best approach since it saves him money, and in any event, he can get his revengeagainst Jennifer in any forum because he knows he is the true victim in all of this. However,Bryan’s lawyer says that a civil trial is best because it will get Bryan the largest damages at theend. Bryan follows his lawyer’s advice and tells the Judge he wants a civil jury trial. The Judgeconsiders both sides position and orders the parties to attempt mediation or other informalresolution first, and if that fails, they must attend arbitration.The next week, the parties sit down with a mediator and try to reach resolution.6. If Bryan’s lawyer uses positional negotiation during the mediation or informalresolution process why is it unlikely to be successful?Answer: 7. If, on the other hand, Jennifer’s lawyers use principled negotiation during themediation or informal resolution process, why is the lawyer likely to succeed? Forfull points, be sure to discuss in detail at least four elements as discussed in thetextbook on this topic.Answer:8. What are the advantages and disadvantages to both parties of attempting aninformal resolution, negotiated settlement, or mediation, rather than proceeding onto binding arbitration?Answer:Ultimately, the mediation fails. The parties file a request for alternative dispute resolution in theform of an arbitration proceeding with a single impartial arbitrator appointed by the Court. Thearbitration starts two weeks later and lasts 3 days.9. What impact, if any, does the Federal Arbitration Act have on the arbitrationbetween Jennifer and Bryan? Be sure to explain your answer.Answer:At the end, the arbitrator added up all the various damages and findings, and concludes Jenniferowes Bryan $125,000. Jennifer, stunned by the result, began to cry. Turning to her lawyer, sheasked if she was really going to have to pay $125,000, to which the lawyer responded that oncethe arbitrator’s judgment is entered by the Court, Bryan could come after her to collect themoney.10. Identify at least two distinct situations that might allow either Bryan or Jennifer toappeal the arbitrator’s award.Answer:Bryan, feeling vindicated, began to dream of what he was going to do with his money. Just as heimagined himself driving around in his new Ferrari, his lawyer pulled him aside and presentedhis bill. To Bryan’s shock, the lawyer’s bill was for 185 hours of work, including the time spentin the actual arbitration, at $400 per hour, for a total of $74,000. At this point, Bryan began tocry. The lawyer then told Bryan it will be an additional $400 per hour for each hour of worktrying to collect the money from Jennifer, it is unlikely Bryan would see any of the money fromJennifer because all her assets were seized as part of the criminal case against her, and that Bryanhad to pay the lawyer’s bill even if he did not collect anything from Jennifer. Bryan really beganto cry.However, Bryan remembered that he had a contract with his lawyer and immediately demandedthat the lawyer honor the $35,000 flat fee. The lawyer, being a lawyer, produced a copy of thecontract Bryan had signed and points to some fine print in 6-point font on the back of thecontract stating the contract did not apply to arbitration actions. Bryan also notices that nearlyhalf the page is covered in fine print and conditions that he did not read when he had signed it onthe verge of the trial. Bryan, feeling cheated, offers the lawyer $35,000 cash money on the spot,or alternatively, tells the lawyer that he is free to try and sue Bryan for the larger $74,000 legalbill. The lawyer smiles, grabs his briefcase, and walks out of the room. Just as he reaches thedoor he turns to Bryan and, with a sinister grin, says that he will be in touch soon.11. Assuming for this question only that Bryan and the lawyer had a valid contract -was the contract a bilateral contract or unilateral contract? Why?Answer:12. Is the contract between Bryan and his lawyer enforceable? Answer by discussingeach of the five elements of an enforceable contract and how they suggest an answerto this question. Where there is ambiguity in the facts above, highlight theambiguity and discuss potential outcomes if additional facts are known.Answer:Bryan and Jennifer, although on opposite sides of the courtroom, both decide they are done withthe legal system, lawyers, judges, or anything else to do with the law. As they are leaving thecourtroom, they briefly make eye contact. This leads Jennifer to think that to put this all behindher she is going to apologize to Bryan so that she can move on with her life. As she approachesBryan, and begins to apologize, Bryan is overcome with guilt and remorse for what he has doneand for his feelings of anger and vindictiveness towards Jennifer. As they talk, they learn thatthey have a lot in common and that they are more alike than not. As the conversation progresses Bryan admits that although he was terrified of Jennifer when she aimed her gun at his head, headmired her good taste in quality firearms by admitting that he too owned a STI DVC Tactical2011 .45 ACP pistol. With that, the two began dating and quickly fell in love. A few monthslater, with love in the air, the two decide to ask the Judge to dismiss all the civil lawsuits andarbitration actions. They also agree that they will not to testify against each other in theirupcoming criminal trials.Thinking this was all over, and with plans to have a wedding next summer, Jennifer and Bryanmoved into Bryan’s apartment and began making plans on how to spend unreasonable amount ofmoney on their “special day.” During this process, Bryan began to read about the trickery andmarketing behind the wedding industry, and decides he must convince Jennifer to have a simplewedding at a pavilion in Forest Park rather than an expensive event at the Four Seasonsdowntown. Although this started as a conversation, it quickly became heated because Jenniferwanted a fairytale Disney princess wedding and Bryan felt that a grown woman should not be sodelusional as to want to emulate a childhood fictional character, particularly one backed by somuch deceptive and manipulative marketing. Jennifer, feeling like her childhood dream of aprincess wedding was evaporating, and noting the wedding was “her” special day, becameenraged. Bryan did not help by repeatedly antagonizing Jennifer and making sarcastic remarksabout her “dream.” As Jennifer often does when she becomes enraged, she turned towardsviolence to express herself. Based on the initial display of violence, Bryan called the police.When the police arrived, and threatened to arrest both of them for domestic violence, Jenniferrealized this was not a healthy relationship and that she needed to move away.After Jennifer left the apartment, she decided to make a clean break for it, broke up with Bryan,and moved to Minneapolis. In Minneapolis, Jennifer obtained a job working at Caribou Coffee’scorporate office in their intellectual property and consumer protection compliance group. Thisgroup works to ensure Caribou’s trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property is notbeing used improperly or in a way that negatively impacts the company, and that Caribou’spractices meet federal and state laws for safe food handling.One day while Jennifer is working, she is alerted to a coffee stand located in the Saint Louis areathat is incorporated as “Bryan’s Superior Caribou Coffee” and which is using logos and graphicsthat use the same background color, font, and general appearance as the real Caribou Coffeetrademarks. After some analysis, Jennifer decides that while Bryan’s Superior Caribou Coffeewas not a direct copy of the actual Caribou Coffee trademarks, it was very close and might makesome customers think Bryan’s coffee shop was associated with the actual Caribou Coffee.Jennifer, partially driven by a concern about trademark confusion and partially driven by a needfor revenge, quickly goes to the Caribou Coffee lawyers and recommends they file a trademarkinfringement lawsuit against Bryan requesting $1,000,000 in damages and a court order thatBryan cease desist using the term “Bryan’s Superior Caribou Coffee” and all associated marks,livery, and colors that share any similarity or resemblance to Caribou Coffee’s trademarks.13. For Caribou Coffee’s trademark infringement lawsuit, explain one possible legalbasis for their lawsuit and explain what Caribou Coffee will have to prove in orderto be successful in their lawsuit. In addition, and based on the limited factsavailable in this scenario, do you believe Caribou Coffee will be successful?Answer:14. Based on the type of legal basis you selected in #13, and given the facts available inthis scenario, do you believe Caribou Coffee will be successful in collecting$1,000,000 in damages and obtaining a cease and desist order? Explain how youreach your conclusion.Answer:Jennifer also notices in Bryan’s online pictures that he is not handling his food sanitationprocedures correctly. Jennifer decides to alert the local authorities about the potential publichealth hazard. A few days later, authorities make an unannounced inspection of Bryan’s coffeeoperation and cite it for several violations. While the health inspectors do not shut the coffeeshop down, the incident makes news and substantially reduces Bryan’s business and revenue.Bryan, never one to back down, sees this situation as one where a large corporation is trying torun “the little guy” out of town with bogus harassment and intimidation by using the legalsystem. In response, Bryan files a lawsuit against Caribou Coffee under Section 2 of theSherman Act, arguing that Caribou is attempting to monopolize interstate commerce by drivingsmall coffee shops out of business in areas that Caribou competes with small coffee shops.During discovery, it comes to light that Caribou does have a policy of using “anonymous tips tothe health department” as one method of limiting competition in certain markets. However,Caribou’s lawyers point out in a court filing that Caribou is not the largest player in this marketand therefore does not have monopoly power so its actions are not a violation of the law.15. Explain whether Bryan might have a successful case against Caribou under Section2 of the Sherman Act? Explain any assumptions you make in answering thisquestion.Answer:While all the above was going on, another legal matter was working through in the background.Although omitted in the story above, while Bryan was sitting in jail after the initial arrest, theGreenthumb! supervisor arrived, and through a two-inch opening in the visitation cell, toldBryan he was fired for violating “company policy” and Greenthumb!’s “standards of ethicalconduct.” The owner just could not understand how this had spiraled out of control and wasfurious that all of the news coverage of this incident included images and video of Bryan in his Greenthumb! uniform. However, in a strange and lucky coincidence, several weeks later, thecriminal charges against Bryan are dropped!As Bryan was working through his issues with Jennifer, he hired a separate attorney to sueGreenthumb! for wrongful termination for a variety of reasons. During the legal proceeding,evidence indicated Greenthumb! had no “company policies,” did not have a code of ethics, anddid not have a code of conduct. However, it did have a handbook that specifically stated that thecompany would not terminate an employee for engaging in “civic actions,” would not fire anemployee who was charged with a crime but was later acquitted or the charges were dropped,and repeatedly said all employees were “at-will” employees at all times.16. Provide one argument as to how Bryan might prevail in his wrongful terminationlawsuit. Then, take the opposite position, and discuss why Bryan might not prevailin his lawsuit against Greenthumb!Answer:Bryan ultimately prevails in his civil lawsuit against Greenthumb!, which ends up nearlybankrupt from Bryan’s lawsuit. Greenthumb! has several creditors (people who Greenthumb!owes money) that are demanding payment. Eventually, Greenthumb! ran out of money andstopped paying, which caused the creditors to sue Greenthumb!’s owner personally for paymentof the debts. At first the owner of Greenthumb tried to hide behind the corporate veil. However,the owner had been sloppy in some elements of organizing his business, which includedorganizing the business as a sole proprietorship. As a sole proprietorship, he did not have strongprotection from liability. Eventually, this fact caught up with him during one of the lawsuits anda creditor was able to seize the owner’s personal assets to settle the debt. As part of the overalldeal to settle the lawsuit, the creditor obtained operational control over Greenthumb! As a goingconcern.17. Identify at least 3 other organizational/legal business structures that Greenthumb!’sowner could have selected that would have provided at least some liabilityprotection for his personal assets in the above situation. Of these 3, identify one ofthem and explain why you think that option would be the best based on what youknow about this scenario.Answer:After all the legal matters were behind him, including the wrongful termination, criminal issues,and the intellectual property and anti-trust lawsuits, Bryan was happily running his own coffeekiosk part time and was re-hired by the new owners of Greenthumb! To work full time again.On a crazy hot, humid day in August, a Greenthumb! supervisor directs Bryan to go to QueenyPark in Ballwin, Missouri, to plant a row of trees. The supervisor gives Bryan a map andspecific directions on where to plant the trees and is very specific that Bryan should be sure toplant the trees where indicated on the map. The Supervisor also highlights a nearby residential development that shares a border with the park and states the shared border is within a few feetof the spot where Bryan is to plant the trees. Bryan tells his supervisor that he is concernedabout being so close to the border between the park and the residential area, but the supervisorassured Bryan that the City of Ballwin Engineering Division professional staff had recentlysurveyed the location.Upon arrival at the site, Bryan looks at the map and his notes, studied the area, and quicklyrealized the Engineering Division mismarked the boundary lines. It was also clear that someoneother than the professional staff had done the work given the sloppy marking, wrong color of themarking lines, and a few places where “lol” and “OMFG” were written in the grass with brightyellow marking paint. Also, a friend had recently told Bryan that the Engineering Divisionprofessional staff had been allowing summer interns to do the marking and the interns had madesome mistakes in the recent past.Bryan felt like he had been in this situation before, recalling his problems back in February out inFairview Heights. Given his past experiences in an oddly coincidental situation, Bryan decidedto take the prudent approach this time and called to ask the Engineering Division’s professionalstaff to come and quickly fix the issue so that he could get on with planting trees. However, after15 minutes on hold listening to K-pop songs, the professional staff told Bryan it would take atleast 2 weeks to return to the site to remark it. Bryan grumbled to himself because he knew someof the professional staff was unionized, while some were not, and it was clear he was talking toone of the union guys. The voice on the phone also mentioned that Destiny 2 was just releasedon PS4, and that only the unionized staff was going to be busy during work time playing thegame on PS4. Bryan was a bit stunned by the call and decided it was his civic duty to tweet theexperience with hashtags #MAGA #Antifa #GovFail.After tweeting, Bryan decided he had performed his civic obligation to shine a light on thesituation and that he needed to get back to work. Bryan then reflected that his supervisor hadbeen very clear about where to plant the trees and that even if the markings were a bit off, Bryancould just manually adjust by a few feet to make sure he was within park boundaries rather thanon private property. Besides, what are the chances that there would be two Jennifer’s in theworld? Bryan also decided not to inform his supervisor again, and figuring the offset wassufficient, went to work digging holes and planting trees.Unbeknownst to Bryan, because he had a cheap cell phone plan with limited signal pretty mucheverywhere, Bryan’s tweet went viral – on the right and the left of the political spectrum. Within20 minutes a mob had assembled in front of city hall demanding the mayor terminate theprofessional staff immediately. The mob felt it was an outrage that city employees werebrazenly refusing to work and instead felt they were entitled to pay while sitting around playing video games. The mayor, acting in good political tradition, did not know how to react so hepanicked and announced publicly that he was terminating the professional staff effectiveimmediately. After he issued the public statement, and with a few shots of whiskey to calmhimself down, the mayor decided he needed to talk to his lawyer. The city’s lawyer listened tothe situation and was not pleased. The city’s lawyer made it clear that the mayor’s actions weregoing to cause some problems because the mayor did not follow proper administrative procedure(outlined in State and Federal law) to terminate the non-unionized city employees, and he failedto follow the collective bargaining agreement when he terminated the unionized employees. Thelawyer indicated this was probably going to cost the cities millions of dollars in litigation and costs – unless of course the mayor could reach a deal with the employees to prevent them fromsuing. The mayor, knowing that if he re-hired the employees he would be run out of office, butalso realizing that the lawyer was right - decided to “split the difference” by deciding only to firethe unionized professional staff rather than the non-union staff. He figured this way he only hadone battle to fight, and besides, the mayor did not care much for unions. The mayor, feelingshrewd, and knowing this would play well with his base, figured this would satisfy everyone andhe would keep his job. Depending on how it plays out, he thought he might even get elected to astate representative seat. Outside, the professional staffs’ union representative and lawyerobserved this decision and decided to file an unfair labor practice complaint with the appropriatefederal entity, and file a complaint to the State Administrative Employment Board, which is anofficial administrative agency tasked with dealing with unionized employee termination appeals.18. Explain whether you believe the management (the mayor/city) committed an unfairlabor practice by firing only the unionized professional staff in the above situation.For this question you can assume that a city government is equivalent to any standardcorporation.Answer:19. The State Administrative Employment Board is a State level administrative agencycharged with adjudicating labor disputes under the State’s administrative laws andregulations. The adjudication process is overseen by a state administrative lawjudge. Identify at least 3 problems with administrative agencies and/or theadministrative appeals and adjudication process.Answer:During the unfair labor practice hearing, the fact that only the unionized professional staff wereplaying PS4 while on the clock came up. Interviews and evidence indicated that the unionizedprofessional staff were playing PS4 because they were engaging in an unsanctioned anduncertified “mini-strike” because the other professional staff had not joined the union. Theunionized professional staff, and their union representative, figured their actions would forcemanagement (the city) to effectively force the non-unionized employees to join the union, andmost importantly, for them to pay their dues. 20. Identify at least two possible ways that the union might have committed an unfairlabor practice in this situation.Answer: