Legal_Risk_and_Opportunity_in_Employment

Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment LAW 351 Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment Legal Encounter 1 This case deals with the wrongful termination of Pat the real property manager in Vermont. Pat was hired 30 days ago. According to Vermont labor laws “Vermont is considered an “at will” state.  An employer may terminate an employee for any reason as long as it is not included in one of the protected classes e.g.:  race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Vermont law also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, place of birth, and age over 18” (Department of Labor State of Vermont, 2005). Within this law NewCorps is justified to terminate Pat’s employment. Pat has expressed that he signed a contract with NewCorp’s in regards to the policy of unsatisfactory performance and corrective action plan. The policy states, “If the job performance of an employee is unsatisfactory, the employee will be notified of the deficiency and placed on a corrective action plan. If the employee’s performance does not improve to a satisfactory level in the specified time period, termination will follow.” However the paper the Pat signed acknowledged that he received a copy of the form and that it was in no way a contract for employment. My recommendation for NewCorp is that Pat should be given the opportunity to get his performance to satisfactory levels. Pat was never warned nor ever notified that his direct manager felt that is performance was not at satisfactory levels. Pat should be notified that his performance is unsatisfactory and then be given a corrective action plan. This gives him a chance to increase his performance and will allow the company to document the steps that were taken in case his performance does not increase. This will also protect NewCorp in case Pat attempts to sue based on wrongful termination.   Legal Encounter 2 Sam is an employee for NewCorp and manages the Under-Dash Wiring Harness Department. Sam began an ill-advised sexual relationship with one of his subordinates named Paula. Paula has alleged that since she has ended the relationship with Sam he has made a hostile work environment for her. Her claims are that he has exhibited unwelcome behaviors and has told was told that her work might be suffering from lack of interest. Sam has also blocked a transfer to another department stating that it would put the health of her unborn baby at risk because of the harsh chemicals that are used in the department, however she was not pregnant. This is a clear case of sexual harassment and clearly violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment violates Title VII” (Cheeseman, 2010). In reviewing the information that Paula has given the part that has me the most concerned is that she was not allowed to move to another department because of a so called fetal-protection policy. In the U.S. Supreme Court Case 33.2 UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc. In this case females employees that were of child bearing years where not allowed to work around hazardous materials. The Supreme Court ruled that Johnsons Controls fetal-protection policy was considered sex discrimination. (Cheeseman, 2010) Due to these findings my recommendations are that NewCorp must take swift and responsive action in attempts to remedy the situation. First step is to investigate the allegations by interviewing with Sam and Paula separately. Also interview the manager of the department the Paula applied for to see if Sam did indeed have a conversation with him or her about his concerns about the fetal-protection policy. Allow Paula to transfer immediately if the department has an open position. If Paula’s allegations are found to be true NewCorp needs to terminate Sam’s employment immediately. Sam has created a hostile work environment for Paula which has infringed upon her Title VII rights.   Legal Encounter 3 Paul is a senior maintenance technician for NewCorp. Paul is required to work on and repair equipment. One piece of equipment that Paul is concerned with is the pulp shedder. He is concerned because it is located in a confined space that he considers unsafe. He is also concerned because one of his co-workers was injured working in this machine. Paul made a complaint to his manager and NewCorp tried to relocate the machine to create more working space, however because of building support they were unable to. Even after the company’s safety manager reviewed and deemed it safe, Paul has still refused to work on the machine. Paul has also stated that he has become claustrophobic because of working in such confined areas and that this condition has aroused from the conditions the company has forced him to work in. Paul has made a formal complaint with OHSA and has threatened to sue NewCorp. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Whirlpool corp. v Marshall 445 us (1. 1980). States that “Respondent Secretary of Labor promulgated a regulation providing that, among other rights protected by the Act, is the right of an employee to choose not to perform his assigned task because of a reasonable apprehension of death or serious injury coupled with a reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available” (FindLaw, 2010). Due to this case NewCorp does have an obligation to create and maintain a healthy work environment for their employees. OHSA can intervene and enforce the required safety standards. My recommendations are to takes Paul’s concerns seriously and allow Paul not to work on the machine. Also, hire an outside inspector to evaluate the piece of equipment and the location to get their opinion on the safety of the machine. NewCorp has to be very careful not to retaliate against Paul because he made a complaint to OHSA. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for filing a charge of discriminationcan” (Cheeseman, 2010). Overall NewCorp can be held accountable for failure to maintain a healthy work environment. Reference Cheeseman, H. R. (1998). Equal opportunity in employment, Business Law. Legal Environment Online Commerce, Business Ethics and International Issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Retrieved from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader.aspx#ch33sb01 Department of Labor State of Vermont. (2005). Can my Employer do that. Retrieved from http:// http://www.labor.vermont.gov/Workers/Employed/CanmyEmployerdoThat/tabid/253/Default.aspx FindLaw (2010) Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1(1980). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl'court=us&vol=445&invol=1 University of Phoenix Material, (n/a) NewCorp Legal Scenarios (v.5)