New_Corp_Legal_Encounters

Newcorp Legal Encounters Legal Encounter 1 In regards to the incidents between Pat Grey and Newcorp, the agency relationship was created on basis of Express Authority in which Pat was hired by agreement to act on behalf of the business (Jennings 2001). By no means necessary was acting on behalf of the business has anything to do with Pat’s decision to express his freedom of speech at the local school board meeting, in which he believed that school sports fund should be divided equally between all athletic programs. Pat firmly believes this event led to his termination. Newcorp is strongly supported by the “freedom to fire at will” statement that was signed by all Newcorp employees but Pat may be protected under the Public Policy exception. (Jennings 2001) states: “In a second group of employment-at-will cases, the courts have afforded protection to those employees called whistle-blowers who report illegal conduct and to those who refuse to participate in conduct that is illegal or that violates public policy. In Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. (Case 18.8), a court deals with the issue of an employer firing an employee who has taken action in an area not directly related to his employment. Pat was terminated under terms of “things weren’t working out” which falls under the Freedom to Fire at Will statement. Pat firmly believes his termination was in violation of Newcorp’s Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance Corrective Action Plan, in which his performance wasn’t grounds for termination. Newcorp has the rights to fire at will. Jennings 2001) states that “recent cases have placed some restriction on this employer freedom to hire and fire at will, as courts have been giving employees/agents the benefits of the reliance.” In Dillon v. Champion Jog-bra, Inc. (vt.2002) the court ruled in favor of Jog-bra because of its statement “Champion Jogbra offers no employment contracts nor does it guarantee any minimum length of employment. Champion Jog-bra reserves the right to terminate any employee at any time “at will,” with or without cause...” Legal Encounter 2 In reference to Paula and Newcorp, Paula’s rights are violated in terms of Sexual Harassment. Paula should have immediately been moved to another department at first notice of existence of the romantic relationship. Sam’s acknowledgement of Paula suffering of “lack of interest, since they stopped dating, supports the defense of sexual harassment occurring because it was brought to the company’s attention by the source involved. Newcorp allowed a romantic relationship to exist between a supervisor and his employee. So therefore it seems if the sexual harassment was encouraged. (Jennings 2001) explains “Section 219(1) of the Restatement sets out a central principle of agency law: A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment . Sexual harassment under Title VII presupposes intentional conduct.” In the case of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (Case 20.2) Employers are held liable for the conduct of employees that amounts to sexual harassment.” Newcorp’s agreement to support Sam’s decision to block Paula’s transfer can result in a sex discrimination suit. Company’s policy clearly states “that chemicals used in wire-coating could harm an early-state fetus being carried by a newly pregnant woman. Paula is not pregnant and Paula may not want to have children and she can make substantiating claims about ending the relationship with Sam as grounds for the transfer block. Supporting Sam’s decision in this matter sends a clear message that women can’t work in wire coatings. ( Jennings 2001) states: “Although Title VII included sex discrimination in its prohibitions, many of the initial discrimination suits were brought in response to “protective legislation,” which consisted of state statutes that prohibited women from working in certain fields and occupations for safety reasons. The reasons for such prohibitions were that the jobs were too strenuous, too dangerous, or too stressful.” Newcorp is liable for all damages in Paula’s claims. It should be of best interest for the company to come up with a plan of action in favor of Paula in this matter. Legal Encounter 3 In reference to Paul and Newcorp, Newcorp violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. (Tompkins 2006) explains “This law established the first time a national policy for safety and health. Until that time no uniform, comprehensive provisions existed on a national basis to protect employees from work place safety and health hazards. Paul clearly brought the safety issue of a confined and dangerous work environment to Newcorp’s attention. Newcorp previously attempted to correct matters when a previous employee became injured working in the same area as Paul. Newcorp is in clear violation of the General Duty Clause of the OSHA Act. (Tompkins 2006) states “Sec. 5. (a) Each employer--- (1) Shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment in which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees; (2) Shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this act” Paul has stated that due to his work environment of working in confining spaces; he’s become claustrophobic, making it a worker compensation issue. Paul is protected under worker’s compensation laws. (Jennings 2006) explains “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.” Newcorp shouldn’t take Paul’s threat to sue lightly. Immediate action should be taken in this matter. With all matters being in Paul’s favor, I suggest that Newcorp make the necessary revisions to provide a safe and efficient working environment by providing adequate work space. Newcorp should retreat to an Alternative Dispute Resolution “in which an independent third person, called a "neutral" will try to help resolve or narrow the areas of conflict (MJB2009)”. References Jennings, M.M. (2006). Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment (7th Ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson Minnesota Judicial Branch. (2009). Alternative Dispute Resolution. Retrieved from http://www.mncourts.gov/'page=303 Tompkins, N.C. (2006). A Manager's Guide to OSHA. Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.