The question of whether Sterling Cooper and Co.’s <em>application process </em>is problematic under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is:
- A. No, Sterling Cooper and Co.’s application process likely does not raise concerns Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
<h3>Title VII of the Civil Rights Act</h3>
This refers to the clause within the Civil Rights Act which prohibits employers from discriminating prospective workers on the grounds of their race, color, religion, gender or country.
With this in mind, we can see that Sterling Cooper and Co made use of an application process which had to do with checking if the prospective employee has been convicted of a felony. This does not violate the Civil Rights Act Title VII in any way.
Therefore, the correct answer is option A
Read more about Civil Rights Act here:
brainly.com/question/10584148
Answer:
The correct answer is: A heretical point of view.
Explanation:
The heretical point of view can be clearly explain from a religious point, as heresy could be explain as something against the church beliefs. In the case of John, he thinks it would be an evasion not to accomplish with the purposes of the enterprise in the market. That is to say, he is talking about the opposite of what he believes it should happen for the benefit of the company.
Answer:
<u><em>The box;</em></u><em> </em><u><em>the basket
</em></u>
Explanation:
Theory of Mind <em>refers to the ability to comprehend other people's emotional mental states and acknowledge that mental states may differ from ours.</em>
Developing a mind theory is a main phase in the development of a child.
A very well-developed mind theory helps individuals resolve conflicts, form relationships, and relatively predict the behavior of other people.
Answer: ethical lapse
Explanation:
An ethical lapse is an error or mistake in judgement that an individual commits which brings about a harmful outcome. It is usually as a result of an oversight as it really doesn't mean that the individual lacks integrity.
The scenario in the question is an ethical lapse. This is because the extra $25 she pocketed wasn't accounted for as it was an oversight and it wasn't that she intentionally stole the $25 or didn't account for it intentionally.