Question: A supermarket owned by Abe Giles Supermarket, Inc., was cited as being in violation of the Connecticut Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act after many inspections revealed violations and failure to remedy them. The state of Connecticut asked the court to order that the market be closed until it complied with the provisions of the act. Giles argued that the court should not close the market because fifteen employees would be out of work. Is Giles's argument a valid one? (State v. Abe Giles Supermarket, Inc., 31 Conn. Supp. 242)