You are on page 1of 5

Legal Risks and Opportunities in 3 Legal Encounters University of Phoenix Anand Mathew

Legal Risks and Opportunities in 3 Legal Encounters Encounter 1 In the first legal encounter, the scenario described is similar to that of Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. The case dealt with implied contracts between employer and employee. In the situation given, Pat Gray was hired by Newcorp; however, his employment was terminated, without the benefit of the process outlined in the employee handbook. In this scenario, there are also allegations of unfriendliness by senior management. There are a few factors to consider in this scenario. The fact that a Corrective Action Plan, as outlined by the employee manual, was not implemented creates a risk for Newcorp. As decided in Dillon, an employee manual creates an implied contract which commits both employer and employee to the outlined plan. The Newcorp employee manual clearly defines how unsatisfactory job performance will be handled. In the encounter provided, Pat Gray was provided a termination notice without the benefit of the Corrective Action Plan, as outlined. Rather than terminating Pat Gray, he should be notified of his deficiency, and allowed to improve within a prescribed time period. By following the procedures outlined in the manual, Newcorp limits claims of violating an implied contract and unfair termination. Allowing Pat Gray to continue under a Corrective Action Plan also limits potential damages which can result from a verdict in favor of Mr. Gray for costs of relocation. A suit brought against Newcorp would result in excessive costs for litigating as well as any potential damages which could result. The best procedure in this scenario is to follow the policy outlined in the employee manual Encounter 2 Newcorps employees engaged in a sexual relationship which has created various liability issues for the business. Title VII protects employees from discrimination and hostile

workplaces. Sam, an individual in a management position, had a relationship with a subordinate. Under the legal theory of respondeat superior, Sam was in a position which created vicarious liability for Newcorp. He was acting as an agent of the company, although he was most likely violating company policy. Workplace relationships between ordinates and subordinates are frequently barred because of instances like Legal Encounter 2. The female employee, Paula, can bring a claim against Newcorp because there was actual knowledge of the relationship. In addition, there were instances where Newcorp failed to take appropriate action against potential sexual harassment. Newcorp failed to interview potential witnesses, regulate Sams contact with Paula, ask for documentation or any other steps to protect itself from a sexual harassment suit. In addition, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act specifically bans refusing to hire or promote based on the basis of pregnancy or family plans (Jennings, 805). By citing Paulas potential to become pregnant, Newcorp also creates a risk for suit based on violation of Title VII. In this scenario, Paula cannot be prevented from working in wire coating because of her potential for pregnancy. As International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc. stated, Congress has left this choice to the woman has her to make (Jennings, 808). In this scenario, Sam has clearly violated multiple statutes which have created vicarious liability issues for Newcorp. It is clear that Sam creates a greater problem for Newcorp and should be dealt with accordingly. Encounter 3 The first area to look at is whether Paul was an employee or a contractor. Paul was employed by Newcorp, worked regular hours, and received a wage; therefore, he is considered to be an employee and, as a result, workers compensation applies to this situation. Workers compensation benefits would be paid to Paul in this scenario because his claims of claustrophobia stem from working in tight spaces. As Jennings writes, The fact that an injury

occurs in the workplace is enough for recovery. In addition, Jennings also states that injuries occurring over time can be compensable workplace injuries. This creates a liability for Newcorp because it exposes Newcorp, despite any precautions or reviews by the safety manager. Paul is protected under the Occupations Health and Safety Act of 1974 which develops safety standards and enforce them through inspections, citations, and court actions (Jennings, 745). If Paul complains, OSHA bars employers from retaliating against employee whistle-blowers. In this situation, we should welcome an OSHA review, especially in light of our own review of safety standards. If there are any issues which rise, they can be remedied on the spot. In addition, if we are found to be within safety standards, we can avoid a potential workers compensation claim as evidence from the OSHA review would limit our liability. In this situation, there is more to lose by trying to fight Paul. We can take proactive measures and temporarily re-assign Paul to a supervisory position pending an OSHA review. As it stands, even if we are penalized by OSHA, the most that Newcorp can be fined is $7,000 because it would not be a willful violation of standards. We have a safety manager that reviews our safety standards; therefore, there are measures in place which prevent us from being fined for willful safety violations. In this scenario, Newcorp has to avoid any action that can be deemed as retaliatory and, also, should not fear an OSHA review.

References Jennings, M.M., Business: Its Legal, ethical, and global environment (7th ed.) Mason, OH. Thompson, 2006. Cheeseman, H.R., Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (7th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2010.

You might also like