Responding Example
Examples of interactive discussion with classmates
Hypothetical Scenario: Review the memorandum, “International vs. Domestic Hiring and Recruitment” that discusses Company A’s new international hiring and recruitment policy that replaces its domestic hiring and recruitment policy. Do you believe the new international hiring and recruitment policy is beneficial or detrimental to Company A? Why or why not?
Superior Example: Substantive, comprehensive, justified Interactive response that promotes further discussion:
Hi, Susie and Classmates: You clearly explained why you believe Company A’s international hiring and recruitment policy is detrimental to the company. However, I disagree with this position. Yes, A’s new hiring policy is more costly in the short term, but I believe it is positive for the company and, in the long term, financially efficient.
The company I work for is not an international one, but 5 years ago it changed from a regional recruitment policy to a national one. This enabled the company to cast the net more widely to hire more qualified, experienced personnel which saved on training costs. Also, according to a 2016 internal study, employee retention in my company increased 25% under the new national hiring policy as my company was able to hire employees who were a better fit in skills, expertise, professional goals and work style. Hiring and training are costly for any company, so increasing employee retention is inevitably a cost savings for businesses.
I believe similar beneficial changes in reduced training costs and savings resulting from employee retention could apply to A’s new international hiring policy. What do you think?
Classmate 1 (Name: Lynnette)
Question) Applying the concept of personal jurisdiction to the scenario facts, discuss why you agree or disagree that the Virginia court has personal jurisdiction over Clean. HINT: Discuss all the factors (there are more than one) that would determine whether Virginia has/has not jurisdiction.
· I agree that Virginia has personal jurisdiction over Clean. Section 1.03 (a)(2) of the Interstate and International Procedure Act is clear that the court can exercise jurisdiction over a company that has contracted with a business in the state if the action is based on conduct represented by 1.03 (a) (1-4) of the Act.
Secondly, Clean’s target audience is the Mid-Atlantic region. The forum state can decide whether to apply personal jurisdiction based on the activity or target audience. Clean advertises “aggressively” in the region, therefore, Virginia can exercise personal jurisdiction over Clean.
Question) Applying the concept of personal jurisdiction to the scenario facts, discuss whether the Maryland court has personal jurisdiction over Clean.
· Yes, Maryland has jurisdiction over Clean. In the Interstate and International Procedure Act, Section 1.02 simply states that Maryland has an enduring relationship with Clean because Clean is domiciled in the state.
Classmate 2 (Name: Belinda)
Question) Applying the concept of personal jurisdiction to the scenario facts, discuss why you agree or disagree that the Virginia court has personal jurisdiction over Clean. HINT: Discuss all the factors (there are more than one) that would determine whether Virginia has/has not jurisdiction.
· I would agree that ABC Cleaning could sue in Virginia. A state would have personal jurisdiction over a case if the defendant is conducting business in the state, and if the defendant was contracting to supply or do things in the state (Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act, 13 U.L.A. 355 (1986) . Another factor would be because Clean caused tortious injury by act or omission in Virginia. Clean was contracted to clean in Virginia, so that would make it possible for them to be sued in the Virginia Court system.
Question) Applying the concept of personal jurisdiction to the scenario facts, discuss whether the Maryland court has personal jurisdiction over Clean.
· I would Agree that Clean could also be sued in Maryland. Maryland court would have jurisdiction because the business is domiciled in Maryland, organized under the laws of Maryland, or maintaining his or its principal place of business in Maryland (Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act, 13 U.L.A. 355 (1986).
In conclusion, I would agree that Clean could be sued in either state. Maryland or Virginia could have jurisdiction over the case.
