NewCorp
Legal Encounter
What liabilities and rights do NewCorp and Pat have in this situation? What legal principles, such as statutory or case law, support those liabilities and rights?
NewCorp is liable to follow the guidelines of the handbook outlining how to deal with unsatisfactory employees, but they also have the right to dismiss an employee at will. Pat on the other hand, has the right to be informed about the indication of the problem and put through a corrective plan to improve his shortcomings before dismissal. Nevertheless, this is a case of implied contract where there is lack of clause clarifying that the policy is not intended to include employment affiliations (Cheeseman, 2010). The employment-at-will doctrine allows the employer to dismiss employ at will; however, in this case NewCorp violated their own guidelines showing poor ethics in the decision to terminate Pat's employment.
Wrongful discharge is supported by the case law while employment-at-will supported by the statutory law. There are Employment Discrimination laws that protect employees from discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, sex, physical disability or age of employees (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2013). Some bodies also seek to prevent employment discrimination in terms of job termination, promotion, hiring, compensation and different types of harassment. Bottom line is, unilateral termination of a contract can be categorized as a wrongful termination,...
If Pat suits and wins, the company can be liable for compensatory damages (Cheeseman, 2010).
Legal Encounter 2
What liability does NewCorp have in this situation? What actions might NewCorp take? Identify which legal principles, such as statutory or case law, support your responses.
Forced sexual behavior like that exhibited by the supervisor could establish widespread favoritism and quid pro quo, which may give rise to a hostile work environment claim. Therefore, NewCorp can be liable for discrimination and sexual assault. The EEOC determined that widespread favoritism results in female workers getting promotions or advantages only by assenting to sexual conduct (Jennings, 2006). The action that NewCorp can take to handle such situation is to implement a policy that illegalizes relationships among employees. This will be able to address sexual assault and harassment consequences in the company.
Congress enacted several statues to help fight discrimination against employees such as Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination in workplace environment on the basis of promotion, job transfers, job trainings and gender, while the Amendment Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1964 also protects employees from harsh or hostile work environments (Grossman, 2003). Therefore, According to the Supreme Court, sexual harassment creates a hostile work environment thus…
To the precedent of Paula's case, a prominent case, which exemplified the sometimes institutionalized presence of inappropriate sexuality in the workplace, came to light when "eight women and one man were fired from a North Mankato (MN) women's shelter because (allegedly) they refused to fit into the sexually charged atmosphere created by a few staff members." (Lang, 1) the clarity of motives for their collective dismissal aligned the decision
legal risk arising from wrongful discharge. What liability and rights do NewCorp and Pat have in this situation? What legal principles -- such as statutory or case law -- support those liabilities and rights? When it comes to the first scenario, it is clear that NewCorp fired Pat based upon the views that he expressed at a public gathering. While this cannot be directly proven, various pieces of circumstantial evidence are
Paula states that the rationale for the refusal is also violation of Title IIV and EEOC (Equal Opportunity Commission Policy) as it is based merely on the fact that she is a woman and has the potential to become pregnant. Sam's use of his power is also a continuation of his harassment, and now seems explicitly 'quid pro quo.' Not accepting his advances resulted in a negative impact upon