Newcorp_Legal_Scenarios

NewCorp Legal Scenarios When companies hire new employees there are certain regulations that should be explained in clear detail from the beginning. When everything is clearly spelled out for the employee, the employer is helping prevent any legal suits that could be brought up against the company. Some of the issues that need to be discussed are, the termination procedures the company uses, the company’s policy on sexual harassment and discrimination, and what Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards the company follows. That information will help establish a solid working relationship between the principle (employer) and the agents (employees) (Jennings, 2006). Legal Encounter One In the event that Pat decides to take action against NewCorp for wrongful termination there are some liabilities and rights that both NewCorp and Pat have in this case. Pat can claim that NewCorp cannot use employment at-will because the company’s personnel manual states a different procedure for handling unsatisfactory employees. The statement in the personnel manual is guaranteeing Pat that his employment will not be terminated before he is notified about the problem and placed on a corrective action plan (University of Phoenix, 2010). NewCorp could be facing a breach of implied contract because the company’s personnel manual is providing a written promise to the employee (Jennings, 2006). If Pat’s employment is not justified he has the right to file a wrongful discharge suit. NewCorp, on the other hand, can say that even though the personnel manual states a different procedure for employment termination, the company still has the right to terminate Pat’s employment because Pat signed the understanding acknowledging NewCorp’s employment at-will procedures (University of Phoenix, 2010). Please reference the case of Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. to get a better understanding of the issues with breach of implied contract (Jennings, 2006). Some states consider information in personnel manuals to be a contract because the employee relies on the procedures listed (Jennings, 2006) therefore; NewCorp needs to know if Vermont considers personnel manuals a contract before the company proceeds with defense about Pat’s termination. It is my recommendation that on top of the severance pay NewCorp should also offer to pay for Pat’s relocation expenses if he decides to leave Vermont for future employment. This could save NewCorp from litigation for breach of implied contract. If NewCorp does not come to an agreement with Pat and the company ends up in litigation it is possible that NewCorp could be found guilty of wrongful termination. If this happens NewCorp may have to pay Pat for lost wages, expenses, and punitive damages. Offering Pat the extra relocation expenses could save NewCorp the cost of litigation. In addition to the agreement with Pat I recommend that NewCorp updates the personnel manual to state that the company practices employment at will termination, to avoid any further confusion with employees. Legal Encounter Two In the case of Paula, who requested a transfer to a different department within NewCorp (University of Phoenix, 2010). Sam has does not have any legal right to block Paula’s transfer request, yes the department she requested does have chemicals which are harmful to an early stage fetus, but Paula is not pregnant. Under the Fair Employment Practices Act companies are barred against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex (Jennings, 2006). Therefore, NewCorp should allow Paula to transfer to a different department if there are any openings within that department. Paula, on the other hand, should not be threatened while working in her current position. Even though she dated Sam for a period, the relationship ended and behaviors that Sam is exhibiting could be viewed as sexual harassment. If Paula believes, she is being sexually harassed by her current supervisor; she has the right to go to Sam’s supervisor or to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Jennings, 2006) to express her concerns. If NewCorp allows Sam’s behavior to continue the company could be at fault for allowing there to be an atmosphere of harassment (Jennings, 2006) in the company, which leads to a hostile work environment for employees. To ensure that this behavior does not continue NewCorp needs to address Paula’s sexual harassment issues. NewCorp needs to give Sam both verbal and written warnings and explain that sexual harassment will not be tolerated, and if he continues to violates those rules his employment will be terminated. NewCorp also needs to have a meeting with Paula and explain that NewCorp in no way condones sexual harassment or sex discrimination and that the company is investigating the case. NewCorp should allow Paula to transfer to a different department within the company. If Paula decides to transfer to the wire-coating department she must sign and acknowledge the fact that the chemicals can be dangerous to early-stage fetuses and if she becomes pregnant she must inform her supervisor, so that NewCorp can authorize a transfer to a different department that is safer for pregnant women. Legal Encounter Three The situation that has arisen between Paul and Newcorp needs to be addressed as soon as possible because NewCorp could be facing litigation if Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) deem the space dangerous to work in (University of Phoenix, 2010). Every company must have safety standards set for the company’s employees and under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 OSHA has a federal right to enforce those standards (Jennings, 2006). If OSHA says that the space in which Paul is working is an unsafe environment, then NewCorp could be facing a willful violation because NewCorp’s safety managers deemed the space safe. If NewCorp is found to have a willful violation there could be a fine of up to $70,000 (Jennings, 2006). Paul as an employee has every right to file a complaint with OSHA if he believes his life is in danger. Paul should know that NewCorp cannot in anyway take retaliatory action against Paul for filing the complaint with OSHA. Paul must also know that NewCorp operates employment at will, and because Paul is refusing to work NewCorp does that the right to terminate Paul’s employment because he is not fulfilling his obligation to the company. If Paul believes his employment was only terminated because he, filed a complaint with OSHA, he can file a complaint with the Department of Labor. NewCorp should review the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Marshall (Jennings, 2006) to see what issues can develop when dealing with safety standards within a company. If NewCorp wants to keep Paul as an employee and restore a healthy work relationship with him, I recommend that NewCorp offers Paul the opportunity to transfer to a different department within the company. If Paul declines the transfer NewCorp needs to consider finding a way to move the machine to a safer more open-area. This way NewCorp can prevent going to litigation that would end up costing the company thousands of dollars. NewCorp also, needs to ensure that the company is abiding to all OSHA standards to prevent another situation like this one from occurring. References Jennings, M.M. (2006). Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment (7th ed.). Retrieved from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/TOC.aspx'assetdataid=0423185a-158c-441e-86ed-49d4007613fb&assetmetaid=fda0e20e-1e89-409a-a18d-84990dac524a. 23 February 2010. University of Phoenix. (2010). New Corp Legal Scenarios. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, LAW531 website. 23 February 2010.