Rafique Sheikh CWID: 893776708 MGMT 518: Legal and Ethical Environment of Business Chapter 4 Case Briefs: Katzenbach

v. McClung pg. 89 In Katzenbach v. McClung, Attorney General Katzenbach sued McClung the owner of Ollies Barbecue for violating Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial segregation in places of public accommodation. McClung contended that since his customers were local, not traveling interstate, he should be exempt from the law. The govt. noted that half of the food McClung bought came from out of state, which was enough to make the business interstate. The district court held for McClung and refused to enforce the Act. The govt. appealed directly to the Supreme Court which concluded that racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude and therefore held for the plaintiff. Hughs v. Oklahoma pg. 92 In Hughs v. Oklahoma, The State of Oklahoma convicted Hughes of transporting minnows from Oklahoma to Texas. Oklahoma prohibited shipping or selling minnows out of state. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the statute and Hughes conviction as consistent with Oklahomas interest in protecting its natural resources. Hughes appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the Oklahoma Law on its face discriminates against interstate commerce. The Court did recognize that the States interests in conservation and protection of wild animals as legitimate local purposes similar to the States interests in protecting the health and safety of their citizens. However the Court found that Oklahoma had chosen to conserve its minnows in the way that most overtly discriminates against interstate commerce. Thus the Supreme Court held for defendant noting that, States may promote this legitimate purpose only in ways consistent with the basic principle that our economic unit is the Nation, and that when a wild animal becomes an article of commerceits use cannot be limited to the citizens of one State to the exclusion of citizens of another State.

Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission of New York pg. 100 In Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission of New York, The Commission ordered electric utilities in New York to end all advertising that promotes the use of electricity. In light of the commissions finding that New York utilities might not have enough power to meet all customer demands for the winter. The commission declared all promotional advertising contrary to the national policy of conserving energy. The New York high court upheld the constitutionality of the Commissions regulation. The Utility appealed to the Supreme Court which observed that the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted government regulation. The Court explained that the First Amendments concern for commercial speech is based on the informational function of advertising. Consequently, there can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public about lawful activity. The Court applied a four-step analysis for commercial speech to the Commissions arguments in support of its ban on promotional advertising and found that the ban satisfied the 3 parts of the analysis but failed the critical inquiry in this case: whether the Commissions complete suppression of speech ordinarily protected by the First Amendment is no more extensive than necessary to further the States interest in energy conservation. The Court found that the energy conservation cannot justify suppressing information about electric devices or services that would cause no net increase in total energy use and thus held for the plaintiff. Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut In Kelo v. City of New London, Suzette Kelo protested that the taking of her home by the City violated the public use provision of the Fifth Amendment. The Connecticut courts held the taking as proper. Kelo appealed to the US Supreme Court which found that the Citys development plan was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals. The Courts explained that the City has carefully formulated an economic development plan which unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment The court concluded that the governments pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties and therefore held for the defendant. Ethics Question pg 116 It is not ethical for the firm to bar an inspection by the OSHA inspector since it defeats the purpose of unannounced inspections and gives the firm time to hide any evidence of improper practices.