Legal_Risks_and_Opportunity_in_Employment

Legal Encounter 1 Newcorp’s Liability and rights We have the right to terminate employees’ at-will as long as we clearly specified the guidelines and procedures outlined in the Personnel Manual were not a contract. Furthermore, we may be liable for not following the do’s and don’ts of the firing at-will employees: Do 1. Conduct an objective uniform measure of Pat’s performance a. Pat was only in position for three months without a performance review 2. Give Pat a written documentation with a clear, business-related reason for his dismissal a. Pat’s boss did not provide Pat with any written documentation 3. Follow the company’s Corrective Action Plan (CAP) guidelines outlined in the Personnel Manual a. Pat was not notified of his poor performance b. Pat was not placed on the CAP c. Pat was not given a chance to improve his performance Don’t 1. Offer Pat a face-saving reason for his dismissal that’s unrelated to poor performance a. Things don’t seem to be working out does not relate to poor performance Pat’s liability and rights Pat’s liability is his family’s welfare. Pat and his family relocate 300 miles to another town. This forces Pat’s wife to quit her job and seek employment in a new town. This also forces Pat to sell one home and buy another. Pat assumes this as a promise of employment and that the CAP section of the Personnel Manual would absolve the at-will doctrine we observed. I believe Pat has a right file suit for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. Case Law The legal principle in this situation comes from the Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. (Case 18.7), Linda Dillon’s boss told her not to be concerned if she does not catch on to her new duties because it should take four to six months before she would be comfortable. However, two months later Dillon was let go. The Supreme Court held Dillon’s boss’s statement was a promise of employment, but the company did not breach contract because the handbook clearly specified the procedures and guidelines do not constitute a contract. Legal Encounter 2 What liability, if any, does Newcorp have in this situation' Sam and Paula had affair and Paula ended the affair. Sam not accepting the break up and continuing to offensively touch and exhibit unwelcome behaviors toward Paula, creates an atmosphere of harassment case. Atmosphere of harassment occurs when “the invitations, language, pictures, or suggestions become so pervasive as to create a hostile work environment” (Jennings, 2006, p. 799). We are liable for Sam’s conduct as it amounts to sexual harassment. As the Burlington Industries, Inc. V Ellerth (Case 20.2) case, Ellerth claims Tom, her boss, was exhibiting unwelcomed behaviors toward her throughout the course of her employment was the result of her leaving. Although she tells no one about his behavior she files a lawsuit claiming Burlington was in violation of the Sexual Harassment Act of Title VII. The outcome of this case was Burlington was liable for Tom’s conduct. The Court evokes a rule that “employers are vicariously liable if supervisors create a sexually hostile work environment” (Jennings, 2006, p.802). Another liability we could face is for its company policy not permitting women to work in the wire-coating section. Paula could claim Newcorp is in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1974 of Title VII because they refuse to promote her on the basis of pregnancy. In International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Case 20.3), Johnson Controls, Inc. claims its fetal-protection policy was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFQQ) because it was protecting an unborn fetus. The Supreme Court held that the PDA prevents “sex-specific fetal-protection policies” (Jennings, 2006, p. 807). What can and cannot Newcorp do' We cannot prevent Paula from transferring to the wire-coating section. Nor allow Sam to continue as Paula’s supervisor. However, they can: 1. Have Paula sign a statement confirming she was advised of the risk 2. Adopt a no fraternization policy among employees 3. Investigate Paula’s sexual harassment claim 4. Interview the employees in Sam’s unit 5. Take appropriate action up to including termination if the investigation proves Sam was sexually harassing Paula Legal encounter 3 Newcorp’s liability We could be found liable for not providing a safe work environment for its employees by having the machine in a confined space. This confined space has already injured one employee and has caused another employee to claim developing claustrophobia and irritation from the noise and vibration of the machine. Paul has a right to refuse to work in the confined space without any retaliation from Newcorp. In the event, Newcorp does retaliate against Paul, the Department of Labor may step in and file suit against Newcorp. Regulatory and compliance requirements and legal principles (statutory or case law The legal principle in this case comes from the Whirlpool Corporation v. Marshall (Case 19.1).Two Whirlpool employees refused to work in a hazardous area, they reported this to OSHA, and lost pay their refusal. The Department of Labor filed suit against Whirlpool requesting the employees receive their six hours of lost pay and have a clear record of the incident. The Supreme Court held that, Whirlpool has a duty to provide its employees with “a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that is causing or likely to cause death or serious physical injury to his employees” (Jennings, 2006, p. 748). The court further states Whirlpool cannot relate against the two employees because they are the only eyes and ears of the OSHA since OSHA’s staff is limited. Providing benefits for injuries from a workplace accident was the initial purpose of the workers’ compensation system (Jennings, 2006). “But workers’ compensation has been extended to cover injuries that develop over time” (Jennings, 2006, p. 756). The noise and vibration could cause Paul to lose his hearing or something even worse over time. Paul does appear to have a valid claim for workers’ compensation and refusing to work in the confined space. For these reasons, I recommend we stop using the machine until they can safely move the machine to a place that will provide more space for Paul and other technicians to work in. References Jennings, M.M. (2006). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment 7th ed. University of Phoenix. (2010). Week 4 Assignment: Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, LAW/531-Business Law