Legal_Risk

Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment The three legal encounters are provided with answers and assessment asked for by NewCorp. The assessment covers the liabilities and rights of the organization as employees and employer work collectively for business operations. In addition, the legal principles are recognized to support recommendations. When one party acts on behalf of another is a principal-agent relationship and when another party acts for another per directions this is an agency relationship. The relationship exists because both parties agree to the relationship and both parties have responsibilities and duties. Employers are referred to as principals in the employer-employee relationship. People hired doing a job for the principal are agents (Jennings, 2006, chap. 18). Therefore, the employees and NewCorp comprise of an agency relationship, which the employees are agents and NewCorp is the principal. Legal Encounter 1: A new manager by the name of Pat Grey relocated to work at NewCorp. Pat was discharged after 3 months with 30 days severance pay. The company advises him the job is not working out. He was given no indication of any issues on-the-job. Employment at will is employees work at the discretion of their employers. When a company hires an employee by written or oral agreement, they are an agent, which means they have authority to act on behalf of the organization (Jennings, p. 18). Pat signed an understanding observing employment at will in reference to discharge and employment, but he received a Personnel Manual, which explained how unsatisfactory employees were handled he believed the freedom to firm him at will was limited by the company. An employee personnel manual is viewed as a contract in some courts because of the policies, procedures, and promises. A determination if a personnel manual and the terms represent a contract is the reliance of an employee on its terms and procedures (Jennings, 2006, chap. 18). Therefore, the organization should have followed the manual in reference to the outline action plan. Pat was vocal at a school board meeting saying sports funds should be divided equally on athletic programs not just football and basketball. He believes he was discharged because of the unpopular position on the matter. The board did not recognize Pat as a NewCorp employee. Therefore, there is a situation of Undisclosed Principal, which an agent acts without disclosing either the existence of a principal or the principal’s identity and the agent is directly liable to the third party. For that reason, NewCorp’s senior management’s concern over his public display of his personal views as a basis for his termination judgment is erroneous. Employees who are not able to receive adequate responses from supervisor or higher authority have the opportunity to present the case to a panel of fellow manager and employees, which is a peer review (Jennings, 2006, chap. 18). A peer review policy should be implemented to prevent lawsuit. The peer review would be equally satisfactory resolution of grievance cases and wrongful termination (Jennings, 2006, chap. 18). Legal Encounter 2: Sam and Paula were in a relationship, which ended badly. Paula is one of his female employees. Paula asked Sam to stop with his unwelcome behavior and touching. The behavior is an illustration of quid pro quo cases, which requires an employee to surrender to sexual advances to remain employed, secure a promotion, or obtain a raise. Sam’s behavior created such a hostile environment for Paula that to stay away from it; she applied for a transfer to the wire-coating section, which would not be directly under Sam’s control. Sam blocked the transfer; citing company policy that chemicals used in wore coatings may harm a fetus in early stages. His argument was if Paula became pregnant the organization could be liable for a birth resulting in birth defect. The 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII is the foundation for discrimination law and its basic purpose is to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1972, Title VII was amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which is enforced by (EEOC) and grants the right to file suits in federal district court. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was added to Title VII in 1975. The act defines sex discrimination to include pregnancy and childbirth discrimination. This act prohibits the following specific acts including refusing to hire or promote on the basis of family plans or pregnancy. The case of Johnson Controls has permitted women to expose themselves to toxins in their positions. An acknowledgement was made by the U.S. Supreme Court in its holding that tort liability may result from the decision. In addition, the liability could be used as a cover for gender discrimination. Women entitled to the high-risk jobs are suing their employers for the birth defects in their children 14 years later. For example, IBM has several suits from employees and their children against it for defects allegedly tied to production line toxins. The position of many of the employers is that even if there were evidence linking the toxins to birth defects, the women took the jobs with knowledge about the risk and agreed to that risk. An employer’s alternative is to inform the women of the risk and not act negligently because Title VII bans sex-specific fetal-protection policies. NewCorp should allow Paula to make the decision as Congress has left women with the choice. If Sam’s actions are not corrected when he is acting as an agent of NewCorp and especially in a supervisory role, NewCorp would be liable for such high remedies available under Title VII include injunctions, back pay, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. If a court finds a violation, it may order that corrective or affirmative action be taken to compensate for past wrongs (Jennings, 2006, chap. 20). In addition, Paula has the right to Paula may have two choices file a complaint internally with NewCorp regarding sexual harassment or voluntarily leave employment with NewCorp. Legal Encounter 3: NewCorp employed Paul as a senior maintenance technician, which required him to work in confined spaces to repair equipment (Philson, 2008, p. 19). Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to ensure worker safety. This statute created three agencies to be handling the responsibility of standards for work safety. The agencies are OSHA, OSHRC, and NIOSH. The agency responsible for enforcement of workplace safety standards and promulgation through court actions, citations, and inspections is OSHA, which is within the Department of Labor (Jennings, 2006, chap. 19). OSHA was called, by Paul, with a complaint that NewCorp was requiring him to work in a situation that was dangerous. The pulp shredder repair was difficult because the work area was narrow and the machine’s noisy vibration irritated Paul. After one employee was injured while working on the machine, NewCorp moved the machine a little but barely any room because of the support beams. If an OSHA inspection is the result of an employee complaint, the employer cannot retaliate against the employee. An employee who is fired, demoted, or discriminated against can file a complaint. An employee’s rights can be pursued in federal district court by the Department of Labor. Paul refused to work on the machine, saying that it was still too confining and dangerous. The area was declared safe by the safety manager. Paul also said that he became claustrophobic because of working in such confining spaces; therefore this became a worker’s compensation issue because the condition arose out of his employment (Philson, 2008, p. 18). The purpose of workers’ compensation laws is to provide wage benefits and medical care to victims of work-related injuries. The standard for recovery under the workers’ compensation system is that the injury originates in the workplace, be caused by the workplace, or develop over time in the workplace. Therefore, Paul’s claim could be applicable. Employee negligence, employer precautions, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk are generally not issues in workers’ compensation cases (Jennings, chap. 19). Paul threatened to sue NewCorp and call OSHA. Therefore, NewCorp should settle with Paul using an Alternative Dispute Resolution method to avoid protracted and expensive legal interventions. ADR is a method by which legal conflicts and disputes are resolved either privately and through means other than litigation in the public records. This is usually done through mediation or arbitration. Conclusion NewCorp has faced the three major issues that plague organizations, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and safety violations. For organizations to understand and comply with any of these workplace issues, and understanding of employer and employee rights will create and maintain a legal and compliant workplace environment. References Jennings, M. M. (2006). Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson. Philson, D. L. (2008). Course syllabus [Abstract]. LAW 531 Business Law, 17-19.