Legal_Risk_and_Opportunity_in_Employment

Running head: LEGAL RISK AND OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment University of Phoenix-Online Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment Legal Encounter 1 Pat was hired by NewCorp as manager of real property in Vermont. In accepting this position, Pat moved his family 300 miles to live in another city. This involved the sale and purchase of a home. After three months, Pat’s boss informed him that things were not working out, and Pat would be discharged, with 30 days severance pay. Prior to this notice, Pat had not been informed there was a performance issue. Pat had been informed that in regards to discharge, NewCorp did observe employment at will, and did sign an understanding in regards to this. According to NewCorp’s employee personnel manual, it explained that if the job performance of an employee were unsatisfactory, the employee would be notified accordingly, and placed on a corrective action plan (CAP). If the performance of the employee did not improve, after a certain time period, the employee would be terminated. In this situation, NewCorp is libel under promissory estoppels. Since Pat moved 300 miles, and the sale and purchase of a home are involved, there was an implied contract between Pat, and NewCorp. (Jennings, 2009, chap. 12) An example of a case relating to this is Dillon v Champion Jogbra, Inc. In this case Dillon was given a sense of job security. After Champion Jogbra terminated her position, Dillon brought suit against the company for wrongful termination. She claimed breach of contract and promissory estoppels. (Dillon v Champion Jogbra, Inc.) NewCorp did not place Pat on a corrective action plan (CAP), as explained in the personnel manual which in some states, has been interpreted as altering the employment at will, which NewCorp, observes. Legal Encounter 2 Sam is employed by NewCorp in the position of supervisor, and developed a dating relationship with one of his employees, Paula. This relationship became an affair, which included frequent encounters in the workplace environment. Paula ended the affair with Sam, and began dating a man who was not associated with NewCorp. Sam refused to accept the end of this relationship, and exhibited unwelcome behaviors towards Paula. In an attempt to distance herself from Sam, Paula applied for a transfer to a department, not supervised by Sam. Sam blocked the transfer, because Paula could become pregnant, and the department she had applied for, involved chemicals, which evidence suggested could harm a fetus. Paula was not pregnant, and believed Sam had blocked the transfer, in order to keep her in his department. Paula believed Sam’s actions were illegal discrimination due to her sex. Sam has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Sexual Harassment (Jennings, 2009, chap.19). Sam’s behavior is inappropriate in the workplace environment, and NewCorp is libel for his actions. The case of Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth illustrates this (Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth). In this case Kimberly Ellerth worked at a division of Burlington, where she reported to Ted Slowik, a mid-manager. Slowik made unwanted sexual advancement towards Ellerth, which in this case, were not fulfilled. Paula could also bring a sexual discrimination suit against NewCorp, due to the blocked transfer request. The best course of action for NewCorp is to take a course of action before it becomes a liability. Sam’s behaviors clearly demonstrate sexual harassment, and my recommendation is that he should be fired immediately. At this point, Human Resources can conference with Paula, and discuss her placement options. With Sam no longer a part of the organization, she may not want to transfer to another area. If Paula does desire to transfer to another area, she should be allowed to do so. Legal Encounter 3 As a senior maintenance technician, employed by NewCorp, Paul was required to work in confined spaces, in order to repair equipment. Paul cited the pulp shredder as especially difficult to repair due to the narrow space, the machine noise, and the vibration. One employee had been injured, while working on the machine, and NewCorp attempted to move the machine, in a larger area. Unfortunately, building support beams, did not allow for much movement. Pat refused to perform repairs on the machine, maintaining it was too confining and dangerous. At this point, after checking the area, NewCorp Safety Manager maintained it was safe. Paul then explained he had become claustrophobic, due to working in such confined spaces. He further explained it was a result of his employment, which made it a worker compensation issue. Paul called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), complaining about NewCorp. Paul also threatened to sue NewCorp. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, is what lead to the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), with the purpose of assuring safe work environments (Jennings, 2009, chap. 18). OSHA does focus on the traditional uses of work equipment, as well as protective equipment. In regards to Paul’s claim of claustrophobia, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study long term effects of illnesses caused by the workplace environment. Worker Compensation does cover illnesses or injuries, which develop over time. A case relating to this is Whirlpool Corporation v Marshall (Whirlpool Corporation v Marshall). In reading this case, it would be inappropriate for NewCorp to force Paul to work on the machine, or reduce his working hours. NewCorp should have an outside safety inspector evaluate the work environment in question. NewCorp can also request an inspection by OSHA. Paul cannot be terminated for calling OSHA. As to Paul’s complaints of claustrophobia, NewCorp can pay for Paul to get a medical exam or a psychiatric evaluation. If Paul is claustrophobic, he may need to transfer to another work area. NewCorp can also have Human Resources conference with Paul, about transferring to another area, where he would feel more comfortable. References Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Dillon v Champion Jogbra, Inc., 819 A. 2d 703 (VT 2002). Jennings, M. M. (2009). Business It’s Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Whirlpool Corporation v Marshall, 445 U.S. 1 (1980).