Legal_Risk_and_Opportunity_in_Employment

Week four assignment is to analyze three different employment legal encounters involving NewCorp and its legal obligations to its employees regarding possible wrongful charge, sexual harassment, and workplace safety. Legal Encounter 1: Manager of Real Property (Pat) NewCorp hired Pat to be the manager of real property, responsible for activities related to maintaining leased office space. After three months of employment, Pat’s superior explained that things was not going as planned and issued a termination notice with 30 days severance pay. The dismissal shocked Pat because he was not aware that his performance was unsatisfactory. Pat termination was an example of wrongful discharge. Pat is aware that he signed an agreement that the company observed employment at will with respect to release him. Pat also believed that the provision limited NewCorp’s freedom to fire him at will because there are Federal acts that produced laws that limit the employment at will policy and assist to enforce reasonable cause for termination. This protect employees from termination in retaliation for reporting violations of the laws or other types of discrimination like race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If Pat was dismissed purposely on any of these reasons protected by these laws, it is not likely to be good cause for termination and means the “at will policy” would not apply. Pat may have grounds for wrongful termination. Pat believed that the termination his dismissal from NewCorp came about because he was vocal at a local school board meeting. He was adamant about the sport funds being allocated among all athletic programs and not just for certain boys’ sports. This did not set well with others in the meeting. Wrongful termination suits can be issued when the employer has retaliated against an employee for exercising his or her right that is supported by public policy within the area. NewCorp also failed to follow the proper disciplinary and termination policies and procedures because beside from the “at will policy” there was another procedure in play, which was the” Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan,” which states if the performance of an employment is unsatisfactory, the employee will be notified of the deficiency and placed on a correction action plan. If the employee’s performance does not improve to a satisfactory level in the specified timeframe, termination will follow. Somehow NewCorp missed this step because Pat was not aware of his unsatisfied work performance until the day he was dismissed. The implied contract of promises, procedures, and policies is in the personnel manual that was issued to Pat upon him accepting the job. The personnel manuals have been held to constitute, both expressly and impliedly, employee contracts or to become part of the employee contracts when they are given to employees at the outset. Implied contracts may even override signed contracts. Therefore, Pat is protected by the implied contract and definitely can take them to court and will have a successful outcome. According to Paul and Townsend (1993) “Employers must set an employment policy, establishing either a good cause termination policy or a pure at-will relationship. All those who deal with employees within the organization must be instructed to state or write only the practices or comments that match the firm's employment policy” (p 81). Legal Encounter 2: Supervisor of Electrical Manufacturing (Sam) NewCorp employed Sam to supervise the electrical manufacturing for auto under-dash wiring harnesses. His department employed about 100 men and women to create the wiring, coat it with various insulators, and connect it to different universal couplings, so speedometers, oil gauges, and other instruments would work. The finished product was sent to the assembly plant for installation. Sam decided to start a relationship with Paula an employee who works under his supervision. Paula decide that she was no longer interest in Sam and want to date someone new outside the plant and broke the relationship with Sam and later want to transfer out of Sam department to wiring-coating department to get away from the situation. Sam blocked the transfer. Sam has two issued he violated involving Paula, “Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal law that prohibits most workplace harassment and discrimination, covers all private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions with 15 or more employees. In addition to prohibiting discrimination against workers because of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex, those protections have been extended to include barring against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment of employees” (Bagley & Dauchy, 1998, p 366). The first violation was sex harassment after Paula informed him to stop his unwelcoming behaviors and he kept persisting. “Sex harassment is define by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or others conduct of sexual nature that explicitly or implicitly are a condition of employment, or are used to make a hiring or other employment decision, or unreasonably interfere with a person’s performance or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sex harassment can be verbal conduct, physical conduct, or booth, and generally must be severe and pervasive. There are basically two types of gender harassment recognized by the courts: quid pro quo and hostile work environment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when sexual favors are demanded in return for job opportunities, promotion, salary increases, and the like. Hostile work environment gender is more difficult to recognize because the same conduct that could be sexual harassment in some circumstances wouldn’t be in others” (Bagley & Dauchy, 1998, p 371). A hostile environment exists when the workplace is infused with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, which are sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. The second violation would be discrimination based on gender because Paula but in a transfer to the wire-coating department to get away from Sam, but he blocked the transfer stating that the chemicals could harm the fetus in the early stages in case she become pregnant and he did not want NewCorp to be liable for the birth defect. Paula believes that Sam blocked her transfer so that he can keep a close eye on her and he has the upper hand. Under the Title VII as well as other federal acts, employers are forbidden to discriminate against employees on the basis of gender. For Paula to succeed in a suit for gender discrimination, she must demonstrate that gender was a determining factor in Sam’s decision to block the transfer. Consequently, Sam states the determining factor she can use to support her case. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1078, which amended Title VII, expanded the definition of gender discrimination to include discrimination based on pregnancy. Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be treated for all employment-related purposes, including the receipt of benefits under employee benefits programs. NewCorp would be liable for a sexual harassment and gender discrimination suit if Paula decide to file a suit and she would win if it goes to court because she of the conduct of her supervisor Sam. NewCorp can terminate Sam for his inappropriate conduct. Legal Encounter 3: Senior Maintenance Technician (Paul) Mew Corp hired Paul as a senior maintenance technician; his position required him to work in confined spaces to repair equipment. Paul expressed his concerns about the conditions of working on the repair of the pulp shredder machine. His concerned was ignored, so he believes his working conditions was unsafe and refused to work on the machine because he stated this confinement caused him to become claustrophobic and has become a worker compensation issue. After going through many changes Paul decided to call Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to complain about NewCorp dangerous working condition. To ensure worker safety, “Congress passed the OSHA Act of 1970, this act in an attempt to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for practically every employee in the country” (Miller & Jentz, 2007, p. 1035). OSHA is the agency responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of workplace safety standards. OSHA also ensures as mush as possible that every working men and women in the nation safe and healthful working conditions bad to preserve our human resources. The purpose of worker compensation laws is to provide wage benefits and medical care to victims of work-related injuries. The law is designed to ensure that employees who are injured or disabled on the job are provided with fixed monetary awards, without having to endure litigation. Other laws protect employers and co-workers by limiting recovery amounts and liabilities of both the employers and co-workers. Worker Compensation has been extended to cover injuries that develop over time. NewCorp should provide Paul with accidental workplace injuries benefits because over the years Paul was affected by the confined space that he had to work in. NewCorp should also, look into purchasing a different type of pulp shredder to fixed in that space or one that can be placed in another area because once OSHA finish their inspection NewCorp will have to do something different or be penalize until they do. If NewCorp does not resolve the problem, in the timeframe allotted, OSHA can investigate and if necessary, eliminate state approval. NewCorp should also make every effort to have the machine in compliance with OSHA regulations, and address the spacing and noise irritations immediately.