The most important question is D. <span>did the employer organization know about the alleged behavior.
Corporations often using their human resources to dismiss the sexual harassment complaints that come from their employees. They did this in order to protect the well-being and reputation of their internal members rather than protecting the victim of the harassment</span>
<em>CALAMAR:</em> <em>TINTA </em><em>ESA </em><em>ES.</em><em>.</em>
In contract law, undue influence differs from duress in that duress includes improper threat which is missing in undue influence. Duress is the use of any kind of threat, force or psychological pressure in order to dominate someone and make him take decisions against his will. The two principal categories of duress are physical and economic duress.
Physical duress is when one party uses a threat of bodily harm or death to make another party agree to a certain contract. Physical duress can be inflicted on individuals as well as goods. Economic duress is when any type of economic pressure is used by a party to force the other party to enter into an illegal contract which they would not have agreed to otherwise.
Giving someone life threats if they do not perform a given task is an example of duress.
To learn more about duress here
brainly.com/question/14781717
#SPJ4
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
Answer:
"Instinct" is the correct response.
Explanation:
- Instinct seems to be unchallengeable, biologically, or evolutionarily inherited pattern of behavior that is sometimes related to another very commonly to something like an organism.
- This could do understand as an evolutionary quirk a creature is acting differentially, an inborn behavioral tendency that becomes typical throughout an individual organism and is sometimes a contribution to particular contextual stimuli.
