This summary provides an overview of the MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments document: - The document outlines weekly assignments for MGMT 520 that involve analyzing administrative regulations from federal or state agencies, completing a case brief from LexisNexis, and participating in a group discussion and individual project analyzing contract and employment law scenarios. - For week 2, students must analyze a proposed administrative regulation, write public comments on the proposal, and discuss legal challenges that could be used to overturn the regulation. - Week 3 involves using LexisNexis to brief a case and analyze subsequent cases that cited it as precedent. - Week 4 is a graded group discussion analyzing a contract dispute between a data processing company

1. MGMT 520 Weekly
Assignments
Click Link Below To Buy:
http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/
Or Visit www.hwcampus.com
Product Description
MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations
Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where
the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the
Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.)
Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation
change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but
interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it:
1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this
agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed
regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit
a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions.
The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document
(.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week
2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a
copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points)
2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points)
3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the
proposed regulation deadline has already passed, write the comment you would
have submitted. Explain briefly what you wish to accomplish with your
comment.(10 points)

2. 4. Provide the “deadline” by which the public comment must be made. (If the date
has already passed, please provide when the deadline was).(5 points)
5.
A. Once you have submitted your comment, what will you be legally entitled
to do later in the promulgation process (if you should choose to do so)? (See the
textbook’s discussion of the Administrative Procedure Act.)
B. If the proposal passes, identify and explainthe five legal theoriesyou
could use in an attempt to have (any) administrative regulation declared invalid
and overturned in court.
C. Which of these challenges would be the best way to challenge the
regulation you selected for this assignment if you wanted to have the regulation
overturned, and why?
Answer all of these questions for #5 even if you are in favor of your proposed
regulation.
The response to question 5 should be a minimum of 2–3 paragraphs long. (15 points)
Regulations are set by the authorities or governmental agencies in order to carry out
objectives of the ratified laws by Congress. This implies that their enforcement ability
is limited in scope. It is because of the aforementioned that regulations become a
challenge in enforcement. The comments that are herein proposed might not have
necessarily gone through…
MGMT 520 Week 3 Assignment
For this assignment, you will need to access the LexisNexis database in the Keller
Library, from the Student Resources area under Course Home.
Go to Kubasek, Chapter 13, page 369, problem 13-16. Use LexisNexis in the Keller
library and look up the Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case. Use the
citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these
questions. Copy and paste this information into a Word document, include your name
on that document, and answer the questions.
1. What must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgement? (3
points)
2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points)
3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in
LexisNexis. (5 points)
4. According to the case, why was this not defamation, and what tort did the court
approve a filing for? (5 points)

3. 5. According to the case, why didn’t the court approve summary judgment for
product liability claims? (5 points)
6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points)
Now, in the library, click the “Shepardize” button in the top right of the LexisNexis page
while on the case. This provides you with all of the cases which have used Nadel et al.
v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case as “precedent” since its publication. Out of the
cases listed, pick one, click the link, read the case, and provide the following
information:
1. the name and citation of the case (5 points);
2. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points);
3. the year of the decision (2 points);
4. the facts of the case (5 points);
5. the issue of the case (5 points);
6. the “decision” of the case (5 points);
7. the principle of law the case was used (cited) for in the case (5 points); and
Following the directions in the library, download a Word document copy of the case,
and include your name in the “note” section of the download. Attach a copy of the
document with your assignment this week. (10 points)
Part 1
Two criteria must be met before summary judgment may be properly granted: (1)
there must be no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the Movant must be entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue implies that certain facts are disputed.
Usually a party opposing summary judgment must introduce evidence that contradicts
…
Part Two
The Nadels – Paul, Evelyn (i.e. Paul’s mother), Christopher (i.e. Paul’s son) and two of
Paul’s daughters were in a car that Paul was driving when they stopped at a Burger
King drive-thru to order some breakfast sandwiches and two cups of coffee. Evelyn
tasted the coffee and found it too hot. Some of it even spilled on her leg…
MGMT 520 Week 4 You Decide Contract Dispute Group Discussion Graded 100%, 32
Pages

4. Scenario Summary
You are the manager of a large data processing project. Your company, Systems Inc.,
worked very hard to obtain a contract with Big Bank to do their conversions from their
recent acquisition, Small Bank. The bank met with several companies to discuss who
would do the best work on the contract. During your meeting with Big Bank, you told
them that you had “never missed a conversion deadline.” At the time, your company
had never missed a conversion deadline, but the company had only done three
conversions. You also told them that your data processing systems were the fastest
around.” After months of negotiation, Big Bank signed the contract. The president of
Big Bank said, “We like fast, and you guys are fast. We choose you.” You started work
on the data…
This group project covers a contract dispute situation. As a group, work through the
following questions. Feel free to ask further questions in the thread of your group
members, and answer your group members questions as well. The best work will be
where all group members work together to get the questions answered. You will be
graded on the quality of your posts, but points will be deducted if your answers are
duplicates of your group members’. Take turns and build on posts. The questions below
have more than one part within each of them so work through them together. Have fun
with this! The main thing is that you learn from this exercise, along with creating some
quality collaboration with your group. Read the Group Project under Course Home or
the Assignments page for this week for the full grading rubric for this group project.
Good luck!
MGMT 520 Week 6 You Decide Graded
Scenario Summary – Week 6 Individual Project
(100 points)
Virginia Pollard worked as a cashier and clerk for Teddy’s Supplies, a family-owned
chain of film production equipment supply stores in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
During a routine performance evaluation, Virginia’s supervisor at Teddy’s complained
that she made too many personal phone calls when she worked in the West Orange
store. The supervisor noted this on Virginia’s annual review, and warned her to keep
personal calls to a bare minimum while at work. Soon thereafter, Teddy transferred
Pollard to guard film equipment in the main warehouse behind the storefront; Virginia
couldn’t make personal calls there, and her work became exemplary. Her performance

5. evaluation three months after her transfer was “meeting expectations” with no negative
comments….
1. Teddy’s Supplies’ CEO has asked you to advise him on the facts of the case and
your opinion of their potential liability. He wants to settle the case. Write a memo to
him that states your view of whether the company is exposed to liability on all
issues you feel are in play. Include in your memo any laws that apply and any
precedent cases either for or against Teddy’s case that impact liability. Include in
the memo your suggested “offer of settlement” to Virginia. Back up your offer using
your analysis of the case against Teddy’s.
2. The circuit court overturned the decision of the NJ Human Rights
Commission that had found that Pollard was the victim of sexual harassment and
disparate treatment. Please answer these questions:…
3. The CEO asks you to review the sexual harassment policy currently in place that
Virginia signed. He wants you to provide him with suggestions for changes to it.
Review the policy and give three recommendations for changes, enhancements, and
ideas for making the policy stronger. Include your reasons for these suggestions. If
you find information online for making these changes, include citations and/or links
to that information. Explain how your suggestions may have protected Teddy’s in
this case. Support these recommendations with current case law.
4. How would Pollard’s case be impacted if her replacement had been a female?
Would her case be different? Would her damages be different? Explain your answer.