In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed in response to the Enron and WorldCom scandals, offering broad protections for whistleblowers at public companies in order to encourage fraud reporting. Private companies were considered immune to the law.
But in 2014 the Supreme Court heard a challenge to SOX, and ruled that even though the plaintiffs were not employees of the publicly traded company, the SOX whistleblower statute applied to them. The reason? They suffered retaliation for reporting alleged fraud involving financial reporting of a publicly-traded company.
Here’s what the law now says:
SOX covers employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors.
SOX covers privately-owned companies if they provide services for publicly-traded ones. Answer:
Explanation:
Answer:
NO
Explanation:
Al-Dabagh, a dermatologist, was said to have completed all the academic requirements at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) for him to become a medical doctor. They school did not give him the required certificate with series of cases brought against him for being unprofessional in his conducts.
Many times, he was found late, and that delayed the classes on several occasions. There are also times he was said to have put up inappropriate acts with some girls in his class and in another incidence, it was said that he rode on a cab and refused to pay afterwards. Though he denied all these, but that did not convince the university to shift ground.
There was a trial court judgment that he should be given the certificate he merited. CWRU decided to appeal the case further and the supreme court reversed the judgement made by the trial court, reaffirming the stance of the university.
Answer: 45kg
Explanation:
Since 25% of the ingot consists of zinc, it implies that (100 - 25) = 75% of copper is contained in the ingot.
We then calculate 75% of 60kg to get the amount of kilograms of copper that the ingot of brass contain. This will be:
= 75% × 60
= 75/100 × 60
= 0.75 × 60
= 45kg
Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
Ozzy recently started working at a new company. He has been solicited several times to join the union of the company, but he would prefer not to. The union officials tell Ozzy that he won’t be allowed to keep working unless he joins the union. Which of the following is true?
-The union officials are pretending they have a closed shop and can't influence Ozzy's decision.
-The union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.
-Ozzy must now join the union because union shops are always legal.
-Ozzy's requirement to join the union depends on his state of employment.
Answer:
-The union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.
Explanation:
There is a law called the National Labor Relations Act that states that no employee should be required to be part of the union and that membership in the union should not be placed as a requirement for the occupation of a particular labor function. However, some states and some companies may adopt different approaches to their employees and the union.
In some states in the country, although an employee is not required to become a member of a union, they allow an obligation for all employees to be required to pay at least part of the union's dues. In this case, we can say that in relation to the case shown in the question above, the union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.
