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.
Generally, this is the case when a person's job puts them at increased risk for violence, such as when that person is a cashier. Casino employees already work in an environment that increases the potential for violence; casinos generally feature a lot of money on the premises, a substantial amount of drinking alcohol on the premises, and people who have lost a significant amount of money. Due to these factors, even without the additional threats of violence from the terrorists, it seems clear that DWI would have some type of protective duty towards its employees. Combined with the fact that there have been specific threats made against the hotel by a terrorist group that has shown its willingness to carry out those threats, it would be absolute disaster for DWI to move forward in its business without addressing those threats. Moreover, it is clear that DWI's internal security staff is inadequate to deal with these threats, given that one sniper attack has already occurred. DWI needs to immediately inform law enforcement. It should begin by calling the local police force and reporting the shooting and the threats, then contacting the state police, the FBI and homeland security. The FBI, the primary federal investigation organization, and homeland security, which specifically deals with terrorist threats, may have the resources necessary to identify the source of the terrorist threat and eradicate it in a timely fashion. DWI should work with those agencies to develop a safety plan for its casino. DWI should also make the threats public, so that its employees and its potential customers have knowledge of the threats and can make an informed decision about whether to come to the casino.
Until DWI is able to develop a reasonable safety plan using the guidance of all available law enforcement agencies, it seems clear DWI needs to temporarily close the casino's doors. While...
To do otherwise might cause public relations problems, which DWI needs to avoid in the wake of a shooting at one of its establishments. Ideally, DWI could keep the casino closed until the suspects were arrested, however if an arrest did not occur within a short period of time, DWI may need to reopen with the terrorists still out there. While the casino is closed, DWI needs to develop a comprehensive security plan targeted at eradicating a terrorist threat. This plan will require private security and individualized training to employees. It may also include physical modifications, such as the removal of any features that would easily hide a sniper during an attack. Once those modifications have been made, then DWI can reopen its doors for business.
Works Cited
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Retrieved March 4, 2009 from Findlaw Web site: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=U.S.&vol=379&page=241
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Retrieved March 4, 2009 from Findlaw
Web site: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=379&invol=294
Title II of the Civil Rights Act (1964) P.L. 88-352, 201 et seq. Retrieved March 4, 2009 from Findlaw
Web site: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_civil_rights_act_2.htm
Watkins, G. (2008). Addressing workplace violence: is there a legal duty on employers to take appropriate steps to prevent exposing employees to workplace violence? Retrieved March 5, 2009 from Workinfo.com
Web site: http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/95.htm
Works Cited
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Retrieved March 4, 2009 from Findlaw Web site: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=U.S.&vol=379&page=241
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Retrieved March 4, 2009 from Findlaw
Web site: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=379&invol=294
Title II of the Civil Rights Act (1964) P.L. 88-352, 201 et seq. Retrieved March 4, 2009 from Findlaw
Web site: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_civil_rights_act_2.htm
Web site: http://www.workinfo.com/free/Downloads/95.htm
Hostile Work Environment: According to the 1993 decision of the United States Supreme Court in "Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc.," hostile environment harassment occurs when "the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" (Cross and LeRoy Miller 497). Facts of the Case: In 1986, Teresa Harris, who was
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was landmark legislation in the United States. The original purpose of the Bill was to protect black men from job-related and other discrimination, but it was later expanded to include protection for women. As a result, it provided political momentum for feminism. This Act prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. The Jim Crow laws in the South were finally discarded, and
Only with the passage of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and Voting Rights Act 1965 did the legacy of 'Jim Crow' truly end, many years after Plessy v. Ferguson was declared legally invalid in Brown. These two acts gave legislative 'teeth' to the Brown decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The 1965 Act, signed into law by the Southern President Lyndon B. Johnson, outlawed literacy tests and poll taxes and
Case AnalysisCase 1: Palmateer v. International Harvester Company,85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)Parties: In the case of Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.Facts: The facts of the case revolved around the plaintiff's claim that he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company.Issue: The issue at stake was whether
Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforced the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by ensuring a legislative act that would prevent discrimination and extend equal protection under the law. The bill in its entirety protects all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, national background, and gender. It was and still is considered to be a landmark bill, in spite of the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment already technically guarantees equal protection
Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Rights Review List a: Civil Rights Act of 1964 & ADA The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, schools, and other arenas. The law protected historically discriminated-against groups such as women, religious groups, and other ethnic minorities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 expanded the protections of the original Civil Rights Act to include disabilities. However, what constitutes a