The person RB had applied to the University of Kansas School of Law, wherein during the admission process he knowingly provided false information regarding his criminal history. In the past, he had been convicted of domestic battery and driving under influence. He was accepted in the University but his criminal background was found out. Later, he was notified of the intention of dismissal and granted an opportunity to explain himself in writing, but he asked for a hearing. The hearing was denied and he was dismissed from the University. To explain : The action of the school to dismiss the person RB denying him due process.

Question

Robert Brown applied for admission to the University of Kansas School of Law. Brown answered “no” to questions on the application asking if he had a criminal history and acknowledged that a false answer constituted “cause for . . . dismissal.” In fact, Brown had criminal convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. He was accepted for admission to the school. When school officials discovered his history, however, he was notified of their intent to dismiss him and given an opportunity to respond in writing. He demanded a hearing. The officials refused to grant Brown a hearing and then expelled him. Did the school’s actions deny Brown due process?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 4, Problem 7BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The person RB had applied to the University of Kansas School of Law, wherein during the admission process he knowingly provided false information regarding his criminal history. In the past, he had been convicted of domestic battery and driving under influence. He was accepted in the University but his criminal background was found out. Later, he was notified of the intention of dismissal and granted an opportunity to explain himself in writing, but he asked for a hearing. The hearing was denied and he was dismissed from the University.

To explain : The action of the school to dismiss the person RB denying him due process.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Robert Brown applied for admission to the University of Kansas School of Law. Brown answered “no” to questions on the application asking if he had a criminal history and acknowledged that a false answer constituted “cause for . . . dismissal.” In fact, Brown had criminal convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. He was accepted for admission to the school. When school officials discovered his history, however, he was notified of their intent to dismiss him and given an opportunity to respond in writing. He demanded a hearing. The officials refused to grant Brown a hearing and then expelled him. Did the school’s actions deny Brown due process?

Jason Trevor owns a commercial bakery in Blakely, Georgia, that produces a variety of goods sold in grocery stores. Trevor is required by law to perform internal tests on food produced at his plant to check for contamination. On three occasions, the tests of food products containing peanut butter were positive for salmonella contamination. Trevor was not required to report the results to US Food and Drug Administration officials, however, so he did not. Instead, Trevor instructed his employees to simply repeat the tests until the results were negative. Meanwhile, the products that had originally tested positive for salmonella were shipped out to retailers. Five people who ate Trevor’s baked goods that year became seriously ill, and one person died from a salmonella infection. What criminal charges, if any, would apply to this scenario? Why? What torts, if any, would apply to this scenario? Why? Even though Trevor’s conduct was legal, was it unethical for him to sell goods that once…

Jason Trevor owns a commercial bakery in Blakely, Georgia, that produces a variety of goods sold in grocery stores. Trevor is required by law to perform internal tests on food produced at his plant to check for contamination. On three occasions, the tests of food products containing peanut butter were positive for salmonella contamination. Trevor was not required to report the results to US Food and Drug Administration officials, however, so he did not. Instead, Trevor instructed his employees to simply repeat the tests until the results were negative. Meanwhile, the products that had originally tested positive for salmonella were shipped out to retailers. Five people who ate Trevor’s baked goods that year became seriously ill, and one person died from a salmonella infection. If Trevor had followed the five basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions, would he still have sold the contaminated goods? Why or why not?