Legal_Encounter_Responses

Legal Encounter Responses Kati Kraft-Smith LAW 531 Martine Anderson University of Phoenix Legal Encounter Responses Introduction: The following are responses to three potentially legal obligations to New Corp. The first deals with a potential wrongful fire of an individual known as Pat. The second a possible sexual harassment and discrimination case against Paula by an individual she use to date and consequentially her supervisor as well, Sam. Finally the third addressed OSHA regulations and what constitutes a safe work environment with Paul. Legal Encounter 1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers most issues in employment discrimination. The At Will Act cannot conflict with Title VII in any way concerning the termination process of Pat. This means that termination cannot take place under the At Will Act if it takes place under discrimination, conflicts with written or implied contracts, or violates any public policy. Pat did sign an At Will agreement preventing him to file suit for wrongful termination. However, Pat could argue that company policies were not adhered to in his case concerning the Corrective Action Plan within the employee handbook thus this case has potential to have a look of discrimination upon beliefs lean to it. Also, Pat could argue that an implied contract was made due to his relocation and sacrifices made by himself and his family. It would be in New Corps best interest to not terminate at the moment and put him on Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance for the specified period of time according to the Corrective Action Plan. After doing this if Pat’s performance does not improve then termination could be the next step. However, it would be best to have documentation of job description, parameters that need to be met along with expectations, and evidence showing no improvement in job performance over the allotted time frame to ensure that we do have evidence to prove poor job performance if this happens to go further. New Corp could also prevent such a situation in the future by removing the Corrective Action Plan process from the organizations policies allowing the At Will contract to fully effective under any situation within the guidelines of the act. Legal Encounter 2 Sexual harassment falls under sex discrimination within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case of Sam and Paula is very serious. Paula has a strong case and action should be taken to avoid a law suit. Sam cannot state that Paula should not be transferred based on the fact that Paula “could” become pregnant. This violates two conditions within Title VII. First it is sex discrimination by not allowing her to take a job based on the fact that she is female and could become pregnant. Second even if she was pregnant New Corp could not prevent her from transfer based on this due to the Pregnancy Act of Title VII added in 1974, which prohibits “ refusing to hire or promote on the basis of pregnancy or family plans. “ (Jennings, 2006). Sam himself suggests that Paula’s work is being affected by the situation, with Sam being the problem in the situation as Paula did ask Sam to leave her alone several times. This is strong evidence for a sexual harassment case and that Sam has created a hostile work environment for Paula. She obviously feels uncomfortable working in her current situation. This could be a huge liability to New Corp as the organization can be held liable for supervisors creating a hostile environment, which seems to be the case here. It would be in the best interest of the organization, and Paula, to allow the transfer and perhaps advise Sam to take sexual harassment training. Paula is aware of the risks that are associated with her new position and is not planning on conceiving at the time. It is the responsibility of New Corp to create a safe and harassment free work environment for all its employees. Legal Encounter 3 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ensures that employees are protected from injury and have a safe and hazard free work environment. If the current condition of the repair house is up to OSHA standards then Paul does not have a cause in regards to a pending OSHA investigation. However, he is claiming claustrophobia problem due to the conditions. This could become a workers compensation case as workers comp includes injuries that evolved over time. The suggestion to New Corp would be to investigate the current condition and what it would take to make them a bit more workable. There is obviously some risk as an employee in the past has already been injured. Paul has the right to refuse to work on the machine without being subjected to any further discrimination because of the issue. It may be in the best interest of the organization to look into environment modification or relocation of the repair shop. This could then eliminate future cases concerning this particular machine and any future workers compensation cases filed due to this incident. Conclusion: New Corp would be wise to act offensively on each of these issues to prevent further issues legally. Pat should be placed on notice of unsatisfactory performance under the Corrective Action Plan to avoid any discrimination cases. Paula needs to be transferred to her new position as quickly as possible and Sam placed in a sexual harassment training to ensure a hostile free environment. And New Corp should look into a new housing environment for machinery repair for Paul as to avoid a workers comp claim. New Corp has a responsibility to each of these employees and by taking action on these issues the organization can avoid any unwanted legal claims against them. References: At Will Employment. Retrieved April 9, 2010 from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf Jennings, M.M. (2006), Business: It's Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (7th ed), Mason, OH: Thomson Preventing Sexual Harassment A Fact Sheet For Employees. Retrieved April 9, 2010 from http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/complaint/Preventing_Sexual_Harassment.htm