A finished MGT-825 Topic 3 enterprise risk liability paper example, arguing that characteristic risk rather than authorization marks organizational liability, and answering the objection that this makes employers insurers. Searches like "mgt 825 topic 3 assignment example", "mgt825 topic 3 sample" and "mgt-825 topic 3 example" land here.
What a finished MGT-825 Topic 3 enterprise risk liability paper looks like
The finished paper holds a single argument across two lines of cases. The first is Ira S. Bushey and Sons v. United States, where the government answered for a drunken sailor who flooded a drydock on his way back to his ship; the court rested liability on the risks characteristic of the enterprise rather than on any service the sailor was performing. The second pairs Faragher v. City of Boca Raton with Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, in which the Supreme Court made employers answer for supervisors' harassment while allowing a defense built on reasonable prevention and correction. A composite home-services company, whose technicians work alone in customers' homes, shows how a manager would apply the argument. The strongest objection, that the approach turns employers into insurers of all conduct, is answered with the limits courts actually keep.
How an MGT-825 Topic 3 example is structured
The paper builds the position, applies it, and then defends it against its most serious critic. It opens by contrasting two ways of reading scope of employment, authorization and characteristic risk, and states that the second better describes both the case law and the exposure a manager should anticipate. The Bushey section gives the facts, Judge Friendly's reasoning and the reason the case matters beyond admiralty. The harassment section explains how Faragher and Ellerth allocate liability for supervisors, including the affirmative defense and its unavailability where a tangible employment action occurred. An application section runs the composite company through both lines: technicians in homes, dispatch pressure, and supervisors with authority over schedules. The objection section states the insurer critique and answers it with the exclusions courts preserve. The conclusion names three preventive practices the argument implies and describes the paper as academic analysis, not guidance on any claim.
Two readings of scope set apart
Authorization asks what the employee was told to do, while characteristic risk asks what the work predictably brings, and the paper argues for the second reading.
Bushey read beyond its setting
A sailor's drunken act in a drydock is used for its reasoning, that an enterprise answers for risks its activity characteristically creates, not for its admiralty facts.
Supervisor harassment under Faragher and Ellerth
The paper explains the employer's liability for supervisors and the defense available when prevention and correction were reasonable and no tangible action occurred.
Technicians alone in customers' homes
The composite company's field model shows which harms its work characteristically invites, and therefore where its supervision and screening carry legal consequence.
The insurer critique met with limits
The objection that employers would answer for everything is met by the exclusions courts keep, such as conduct driven by purely personal matters unrelated to the work.
Where marks go in MGT-825 Topic 3
Submissions that treat scope of employment as a question of what the manager authorized tend to lose credit from the first page. Employers routinely answer for conduct they forbade, and a paper that misses this has not engaged the cases assigned. Citing Bushey for its facts alone, as a curiosity about a flooded drydock, wastes the reasoning that makes it useful to a manager. The harassment framework is often compressed until the affirmative defense disappears, or described as available when a supervisor has fired or demoted the employee, where it is not. Leaving the insurer objection out makes the position look stronger than it is. Credit also goes missing when the application stays abstract and never says which practices in the composite company the argument would change.
Get an MGT-825 Topic 3 example written to your instructions
Send the MGT-825 Topic 3 instructions, the rubric posted in your classroom and any case list or scenario your section named. We write a custom example to those criteria, with the enterprise risk position argued through landmark cases, the harassment framework stated accurately and the insurer objection answered, back in 24 to 48 hours. The first is free.
MGT-825 Topic 3 questions, answered
What did Ira S. Bushey and Sons v. United States decide?
The Second Circuit held the United States liable when a Coast Guard seaman, returning drunk to his ship in a private drydock, turned wheels controlling the drydock's valves and flooded it. Judge Friendly reasoned that the conduct was a risk characteristic of the enterprise, since crews returning from shore leave predictably behave this way, even though it served no purpose of the employer.
When can an employer avoid liability for a supervisor's harassment?
Under Faragher and Ellerth, where no tangible employment action such as firing or demotion occurred, an employer may defend by showing it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use the procedures offered. Where a tangible action occurred, that defense is not available. The example states the framework for coursework purposes; real claims turn on facts and jurisdiction.
Does this mean an organization is liable for everything employees do?
No, and the paper spends a section on why. Courts still exclude conduct arising from purely personal matters unrelated to the work, and many intentional acts fall outside scope in most jurisdictions. The argument is narrower: liability tracks the risks the work characteristically creates. The practical consequence is that screening, supervision and complaint procedures are where a manager's choices shape the organization's exposure.