Answer the three sections

Section 1

Erica Schoen, a 16-year employee of Freightliner, returned to work on light duty after surgery for a work-related shoulder injury. She was assigned to work out of the nurses station under two employees who intentionally worked her beyond her restrictions, assigned her to humiliating work, repeatedly called her worthless, and used her as a personal servantordering her to get snacks, sodas, and lunches for them and not reimbursing her. After five months of this treatment, Erica brought the matter to the human resources manager, who told her, in part, Nobody wants you. Youre worthless. We build trucks down here…. Erica became hysterical and thereafter required psychiatric care.
After reading Chapters 16, 17, 18, and 19, read the following facts and answers the questions asked:
1. Does Erica have a Workers Compensation Case  Why or why not?
2. Does the actions of the co-employees amount to “outrageous conduct” required for the tort of infliction of emotional distress? Why or why not?
3. If Erica claims infliction of emotional distress, what types of corroborating evidence must Etta show.  Give three (3) examples of corroborating evidence.

Section 2

You arrive at the scene of home where a person has been placed in custody.  You notice his computer is running and apparently encrypting files. 
* What do you do next and why?
* Please detail each step in order and explain the reasons behind each step.
Remember, making the wrong decision could lead to loss of data, evidence and the guilty person going free!

Section 3 (APA citations)

Hot Coffee:
Last week, you submitted your papers related to the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, as portrayed by the Hot Coffee documentary.   This week, we will discuss other aspects of the documentary that were not a party of the paper assignment, namely the issue of mandatory arbitration provisions in contracts.     Please be sure to review that portion of the video as well this article  Cup Half Full: “Hot Coffee” Serves Up Slanted View of Liability System. 
Consider the issues presented in the documentary and the related articles and answer the questions below.
Questions
(1)  What are mandatory arbitration provisions?  
(2) What are the benefits and drawbacks of mandatory arbitration provisions?  
(3)  What do you think should be done with respect to mandatory arbitration provisions?  You can be creative here and there isn’t one correct answer.  Instead, I am looking for thoughtful and well-reasoned commentary on the issue.  Remember, we all may have different opinions on the issue.  The goal is to have a respectful and informative dialogue.