Ncs_Paper

NewCorp hired a property manager who was responsible for maintaining a leased office in Vermont. The manager, Pat, relocated his family and sold his home. Pat had been with NewCorp for 3 months when his supervisor informed him that he would be discharged and given 1 month of severance pay. The supervisor explained that “things were not working out”. Pat had not been previously advised of poor job performance, but acknowledged signing a document explaining that he was an “at will” employee. In the personnel manual provided by NewCorp, it outlined the procedures for unsatisfactory performance of an employee. It stated that when an employee is underperforming, he will be given notice and placed on a corrective action plan. If the job performance does not improve within the specified amount of time, termination will follow. NewCorp could be held liable for the wrongful termination of this employee based on the implied contact of the employment agreement. The personnel manual stated that the employee will be notified of an unsatisfactory job performance and placed on a corrective action plan. Pat reports that he was never notified or given a chance to correct his behavior. Even though Pat acknowledges signing a document that identified his employment as “at will”, the provision in the personnel manual given to Pat upon his acceptance of employment prohibits at will termination. In the case of Pine River State Bank v. Mettilee, the court found that the employer offered a job with the provisions outlined in the employee handbook in regard to the disciplinary policy section and reprimands (Muhl, 2001). In the state of Vermont, where Pat was employed, implied contract is viewed as an exception to at-all employment. “… even if the employee is not a union member, and does not have a written employment contract, there may be statements in the employee handbook or job application that create a contract under which employees can only be discharged for good cause.” (Shilling, 1998, p.547) In the second scenario, the supervisor, Sam engaged in a personal relationship with his subordinate, Paula. Upon the termination of their relationship, Sam began displaying inappropriate behavior towards Paula. Paula requested a transfer to a different department which was blocked by Sam. Sam advised the company, that since Paula was able to become pregnant, the chemicals used in the requested department could damage a fetus, leaving them liable. There are several legal issues in this situation. There was a personal relationship between a manager and his subordinate which resulted in allegations of sexual harassment. If personal relationships are prohibited within the company, then both parties should be held responsible. Sexual harassment as defined by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the unwanted advances of one employee to another in the workplace. The company could be held strictly liable for sexual harassment. Quid pro quo harassment- where sexual advances are tied to employment consequences and acted on by a supervisor, even if the company had no knowledge of the act, the employer can still be held liable. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also includes the Pregnancy Act which prohibits the discrimination in employment decisions of women who are pregnancy or who have pregnancy related conditions. The fact that the manager was allowed to prevent Paula from being employed by another department in the company, based on her reproductive capacity is clearly in violation of the federal law. In the final scenario Paul, a senior maintenance technician was required by NewCorp to perform his work in a confining space, which Paul believed to be dangerous. Another worker had already been injured working on a piece of equipment in the same space. Paul alleges that he developed claustrophobia from being forced to work in the small space. After a NewCorp safety manager ruled the area safe, Paul complained to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). NewCorp can be held strictly liable for an employee related injury from their employee who was alleging claustrophobia. Worker’s compensation provides money to pay for loss of wages and medical expenses connected with the work related injury. The employee is not required to prove that the injury was a direct result of the employer’s carelessness. If awarded to the plaintiff, worker’s compensation will be paid entirely by the employer (Fick, 1997). The company could also be held in violation for the 1970 Occupational Standard and Safety Health act which was created to maintain safety in the workplace. This legislation is governed by OSHA and provides that an employer must keep their work environment free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause injury to their employees. The act also protects workers from being terminated after refusing to work. ”… an employer is prohibited from discharging or disciplining an employee who refuses to perform work that the employee believes in good faith poses a real danger of death or serious injury, if all of the following factors are present: (1) a reasonable person in the employee’s position would also conclude that there is a real danger of death or serious injury (2) there is insufficient time to eliminate the danger through regular OSHA channels; and (3) the employee has unsuccessfully asked the employer to fix the problem” (Fick, 1997, p 73).