Answer:
In the understanding of this court case, where the plaintiff (L.M.) filed a lawsuit against Pacheco on sexual abuse, the court ruled that the perpetration of the abhorrent act committed did not have to do with Pacheco´s ´´scope of employment´´ as the act happened outside the boundaries of the church and not within his working hours. However, if the plaintiff were to argue that in fact this conduct happened within the scope of employment, she would have to explain and convince that Pacheco was indeed responsible as it is a Pastor's duty and responsibility to guide and counsel at all hours, and not just limited to his church´s hours. A pastor is a figure of responsibility as a visible head for a community, not to mention that in some churches, a pastor is also a legal representative.
Employers should be held liable for the acts of their employees whenever there is a failure to supervise employees or some kind of misdemeanor is perpetrated within the employer´s work facilities or influential premises. These points of view however, are not stated by a lawyer/judicially, these are my personal observations after having researched on the case.
Answer: Elected official is removed from office
Explanation:
It made transporting goods easier and faster, was also a new great way of transportation for people.
Answer:
Conspicuous consumption
Explanation:
In the twentieth century there were significant improvement in the living standards of people. One of the effects of this was the increased amount of consumption of goods by the people who had discretionary income.
Later, this consumption was done in order show one's superiority over others. This was done in order to maintain their social status to gain a higher social status. This type of consumption is called conspicuous consumption.
