Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
As Cavico et al. (2013) note, social media is an outlet of free speech, and as Riddle (2016) observes, the National Labor Relations Board has viewed social media criticism of a person's workplace as fair and not a condition that justifies firing an employee -- in other words, it cannot be used to terminate an at-will employment. However, in John's case, he did not criticize the company but rather the company's client. This opens the incident to an all new interpretation -- and it could therefore be seen as grounds for releasing John. Thus, John could be legally fired. However, to limit liability and impact on operations, the ethical theory approach to use here could be the Utilitarian approach -- John's behavior is scandalous to customers; therefore, he must go. At the same time, out of respect for John's free speech on social media, one could take a transformational leadership approach, retain John, correct him, and coach him to be a better employee who does not criticize customers no matter their deficiencies. This is an alternative that could really limit liability should John choose to sue over wrongful termination.
Ellen on the other hand is not one who can be fired. She is criticizing the company directly on a blog, which is a social media type of outlet. According to the National Labor Relations Board, such postings are not legally grounds for termination. In fact, were Ellen to be fired, she could sue or seek compensation for wrongful termination. The fact that the company has no whistleblower policy in place would only serve to strengthen her argument -- as she feels that she is blowing the whistle publicly via social media as there is no internal alternative within the company to bring up problems within the hierarchy. Ellen therefore should not be terminated -- at least not…
Law and Society The Nature of Law and Justice - Sadomasochism Sadomasochism presents the complexities and nuances involved in the nature of law and justice. In its purest definition, socially and legally, sadomasochism is a consensual act. There may even be actual contracts involved. However, this presentation shows that just because there is consent to the act, doesn't mean that the dominant can get away with anything. In cases in which the
I just like accumulating knowledge and my professional career has shown that you never can really know where you will be needing parts of that knowledge: I worked as a machinist for some time, but then I was able to promote because of the additional knowledge I had gained in the meantime. I hope that the education I will receive in law school would help improve my knowledge portfolio to
Law and Philosophy Holmes' "bad man" theory offers insight into the difference between the law and morality. The bad man is not concerned with morality but he is as concerned about the law as any "good" man because in knowing the law, he can avoid getting into trouble. The bad man would lie, cheat, and/or steal if it weren't against the law because he cares not for the morals that underlie
Oliver Wendell Holmes states that justice is subjective and changes according to the viewer's prejudice, viewpoint or social affiliation. But a set of rules is needed to make society function and these rules must be carried out. This philosophy of law applies to Ann Hopkins' case. The senior partner and admissions committee had the prerogative of setting out the rules with which partners should be selected. Their sense of justice
However, Erin Brockovich the movie has a very different ending than the actual civil action under tort law brought against California's Pacific Gas and Electric Co. The Hollywood ending would have been preferable, however life is just not that simple and a tort law case against such a company is really a long, tiring legal battle. The 1993 legal dispute from Hinkley was resolved by arbitrage and at first
The fact that a guard was able to take information from a prisoner's cell, and give it to prosecutors is a clear violation of basic procedures. As a result, greater amounts of oversight are required to prevent these issues from becoming a problem in the future. ("Deon Christopher Carter v State of Maryland," 2003) Conclusion Clearly, the evidence that was collected from Jones' cell is a violation of the Sixth Amendment.