Consider this scenario Sloan was offered a full-time position at a well-known investment bank. After she verbally accepted the offer the recruiter asked her to complete some standard paperwork. One of the questions she answered was "Have you graduated from college or university?" Sloan checked the "Yes" box. The problem is that Sloan had completed all of her coursework for graduation, but she had not yet completed her university’s internship requirement. She had heard from friends that the university sometimes allowed students to apply their first three months of full-time employment toward the internship requirement.
After accepting the offer, Sloan moved across the country to begin working at the investment bank. She signed a year-long apartment lease and was eager to begin her career. Two weeks into her job, she was asked to meet with her supervisor and a representative from human resources. Sloan was terminated for providing inaccurate information on her application materials and escorted from the building. When the human resources department at the investment bank contacted Sloan’s university to confirm her graduation date, they had learned she had not yet graduated.
1. Was the University’s decision to communicate that Sloan had not yet graduated illegal?
a. Yes
b. No
2. What should Sloan have done?
a. Sloan shouldn’t have answered the question on the form.
b. Sloan should have checked "No" on the box and hoped no one would carry out a background check.
c. Sloan should have checked "Yes" on the box and explained the situation to the recruiter.
d. Sloan should have checked "No" on the box and explained the situation to the recruiter.

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.