Title VII discrimination liability in NewCorp's wrongful termination of Pat

¶ … 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 illustrating how this is the case. As, he was not given any kind of notification for: unsatisfactory behavior at work. This is important, because it means that the company does have a potential legal liability (based upon these actions).

Rule

The statutory rule that company is violating is the provisions of: intentional discrimination (under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). This states that it is illegal for employers, to fire someone based upon: actions that they may not agree with or endorse. As, this is considered to be: targeting an individual for some kind of disciplinary action (to include termination). (Cheeseman, 2010, pp. 511 -- 527)

Conclusion

As a result, NewCorp will more than likely face stiff penalties under the law if Pat sues and there is a trial. Some of the possible remedies that the court could be imposed upon the company include: they could order Pat to be reinstated to his original position, there could be substantial monetary penalties and the company could become the target of similar lawsuits. (Cheeseman, 2010, pp. 511 -- 527)

4.2 Evaluate legal risk associated with employment discrimination and harassment.

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.

Issue

The basic liability that NewCorp is wrestling with in this situation is that they are not providing a safe working environment for Paula. Evidence of this can be seen with Sam and her having romantic relationship that ended on bad terms. As Sam is using this, to prevent Paula from being transferred to other departments and is showing very aggressive behavior (citing the quality of her work after the break up).

Rule

The basic legal principal that would apply is case law precedent. The most notable example of this can be seen with the U.S. Supreme Court case Pennsylvania State Police vs. Suders. In this case, the court ruled that when sexual or gender harassment is taking place, it is creating an unequal work environment for the employee (which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). (Cheeseman, 2010, pp. 511 -- 527)

Analysis

In this situation NewCorp has responsibility to protect Paula by creating a work environment that will prevent Sam's aggressive behavior. As a result, the company must take some kind of aggressive action to mitigate possible litigation. The most notable steps that can be taken to address the problem include: transferring Paula to the department that she is requesting, terminating Sam from the company and transferring Sam to another division (where he will not contact Paula).

Conclusion

When you step back and analyze this situation, it is clear that NewCorp needs to take drastic action to prevent them from facing possible litigation (surrounding violations of Title VII). As Paula could show that the actions taken by Sam were a direct violation of her basic civil rights. This is because they failed to provide a safe working environment for her. Given the fact that Sam is her supervisor, means that this is evident with his refusal for transfer (based upon her becoming exposed to chemicals in the event she becomes pregnant). This is problematic, because it is highlighting how this could be a major issue down the road, unless some kind of steps are taken to mitigate the situation.

4.3 Evaluate the regulatory and compliance requirements related to employment and benefits.

What legal principles apply to the circumstances in Paul's situation?

Issue

The basic issue (in this case) is that Paul is being forced to work with, a machine that has caused one injury (due to the fact that it is in a tight working space). This is problematic, because he is refusing to work on the machine, even though the company's safety supervisor is saying that everything is fine.

Rule

The legal principal that applies to this situation is the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This requires that all employers provide: a safe work environment that prevent hazards, which can cause physical injury or death. This is important, because this kind of situation exists at NewCorp, as they have already had one injury with the tight workspace around this machine. (Cheeseman, 2010, pp. 486 -- 498)

Analysis

When you analyze this situation, Paul is making a legitimate point that the company needs to address this issue. As, he could easily claim that they are making him work in: such tight areas, with dangerous machines (which are contributing to his claustrophobia). This is significant, because it means that the company could face possible fines from: OSHA and litigation (surrounding this issue).

Conclusion

In this case, NewCorp needs to address these obvious violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As their lack of focusing on this issue, is making Paul's claims stronger (due to their refusal to tackle these challenges). This is important, because it means that until the company takes some kind of action, they can expect possible surprise visits from: regulators and an increase in litigation.