Legal_Risk_and_Opportunity_in_Employment_Relationship

Running Header: LEGAL RISK AND OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment Relationship University of Phoenix November 23, 2009 To: NewCorp Management From: Date: November 23, 2009 Subject: Legal Encounters 1 - 3 Legal Encounter #1 Pat Grey employed for three months at NewCorp as the manager of real property in Vermont. Pat is responsible for maintaining leased office space for NewCorp. Upon acceptance of his new role with NewCorp Pat signed that he agreed to NewCorp’s personnel manual, which stated that NewCorp engages in employment at will. Employment at will means that employees work at the discretion of their employers, which means employers may terminate their relationships with employees without notice of cause. Pat did not expect his boss to displace him with 30 days of severance pay due to “things not working out.” Pat directed his attention to NewCorp’s Personnel Manual and found that there is an outlined process for dealing with unsatisfactory employees as stated in the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan. Pat’s boss never approached him regarding any performance issues. Wrongful discharge suits can also warrant in situations in which an employer may retaliate against an employee for exhibiting a right that the public policy supported within the jurisdiction. In Pat’s mind the fact that he had been vocal at a local school board meeting in which he was in favor on school sports funds being allocated equally among all student athletic programs and not just support for the boys’ football and basketball programs. His position on this topic was unpopular and he believes that this contributed to NewCorp senior management discharging him. Based on the information in the Personnel Manual may lead to inconsistencies with employment at will and prove to be grounds for litigation. NewCorp must review its personnel manual to ensure that the language is consistent with employment at will. Pat Grey may have grounds for wrongful termination if he can establish a claim for promissory estoppel if he can show that NewCorp was in breach of a specific promise the company made to him. NewsCorp management must be mindful of promises made to Pat Grey when he relocated from another city 300 miles away. The move included his spouse and children, selling and buying a home, and dealing with a spouse that quit her job to seek employment in Vermont. Legal Encounter #2 Sam developed a relationship with a female subordinate, Paula who subsequently lost interest and began a relationship with a person outside of NewCorp. Sam’s attraction led to inappropriate behavior toward Paula that fostered a hostile work environment and resulted in quid pro quo sexual harassment. NewCorp’s management proactive steps to investigate this situation within 24 hours will demonstrate a prudent response to sexual harassment. Management must interview potential witnesses who may be aware of his pattern of harassment. Management must separate Paula and Sam from the same work environment clearly to demonstrate to employees that the separation does not imply any prejudgment against either party. The next step that management must take is to choose carefully the questions for interviews during the investigation. During the interviewing process, one should gain the details pertaining to the alleged acts, dates, and other information that illustrates a pattern of behavior. NewCorp’s management will ask for documentation and other hard evidence that will substantiate the case. Management can be held liable for defamation of character if management is not mindful to reveal only what is necessary and confirmed. A sexual harassment cause can be potentially detrimental to NewCorp’s reputation. To cite the case of Internal Union versus Johnson Controls, Inc., the plaintiffs In this class actions suit believed that women had the right to choose a high- risk job according to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978. The purpose of Title VII is to eliminate discrimination of the basis of sex, which Includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. A policy that excludes women “capable of bearing children” from working dangerous positions in sex discrimination (Schneyer, 2007).  Management must not allow Sam to block Paula’s request to transfer to wire-coating section for the reason “fetal-protection.” Paula’s contention is correct that blocking her transfer, citing company policy that the chemicals used in wire coating could harm an early-state fetus, discrimination based on sex and therefore, illegal. Legal Encounter #3 The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 is to hold Employers accountable for providing safe environments for employees; the function of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is to develop safety standards and enforce them through inspections, citations, and litigation. The scope of this act covers every employee within the United States, making it necessary to share regulatory responsibilities among three agencies: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). OSHA is the agency within the Department of Labor responsible for the delivery and enforcement of workplace safety standards through inspections, citations and litigation (Jennings, 2006). The case of Whirlpool Corporation versus Marshall resulted in a demonstration of the rule making power and authority that the secretary of OSHA has over employers. The legal precedent set in motion by this case, empowered employees to make sound judgment decisions about their welfare (Jennings, 2006). After one employee’s injury while working on the machine, NewCorp took steps to improve the working conditions by moving machines permits for more working area. Unfortunately, nearby building support beams restricted much movement for the machines and Paul, a senior maintenance technician at NewCorp, believes that a dangerous situation still exists. Paul believes in good faith that he has been put in a position that exposes him to a dangerous condition. According to the legal precedent set by the case of Whirlpool Corporation versus Marshall, Paul may refuse to expose himself to that danger despite the fact that NewCorp safety manager has deemed the area safe (Jennings, 2006). Paul states that he has forged a complaint with OSHA so NewCorp management must take precautionary care to avoid any actions against Paul that may be seen as retaliatory. The scope of responsibility that NewCorp has to ensure compliance with OSHA is to first know and follow the rules and guidelines, inspect for hazards and correct them. NewCorp must also inform employees of their rights, keep statutorily mandated records and post citations (Jennings, 2006). References Jennings, M. M. (2006). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (7th ed.). Retrieved online November 21, 2009. https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/ content /eBookLibrary2/content/DownloadList.aspx'assetMetaId=fda0e20e-1e89-409a-a18d-84990dac524a&assetDataId =3723431d-de32-4b2d-a9b9-2a8b11a641df Schneyer, K. L. (2007). Talking About Judges, Talking About Women: Constitutive Rhetoric in the Johnson Controls Case. American Business Law Journal, 31(1), 117-164. Retrieved from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119287965 /abstract'CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0