¶ … Jake's actions are in or out of "his scope of employment." According to the LSU Law Center (1993), "An employee's scope of employment is the activities that the employee may properly carry out and that the employer is expected to supervise." In the most basic terms, scope of employment refers to regular job duties: those duties that are expressly outlined in term of service contracts, job descriptions, and implicit role designation. Using even the narrowest definition, Jake's actions are certainly within the scope of employment. Moreover, "determining scope of employment is important because an employee can collect worker's compensation benefits only for injuries that arise within the scope of employment," (LSU Law Center 1993).

It is impossible to know exactly what Jake means when he states, "I've decided I should do the job the way it ought to be done: thoroughly and perfectly. Doesn't the law require it?" State law would need to be consulted on this issue. However, Herman seems to be agreeing with Jake by stating, "I don't require it. Do a lousy job, just do it quickly." Herman appears to want to cut corners, whereas what Jake is doing remains with the scope of employment.

If, however, Herman can prove that Jake has been acting outside of the scope of employment this would have a bearing on a worker compensation claim. This would be highly unlikely, because Jake refers directly to his certification as an auto mechanic. The auto mechanic certification specifications might hold the key to determining what the parameters of the scope of employment are in this case. If it can be shown that customers receiving an oil change at any price, including free, have the right to know if something else is wrong with the car, then Jake is acting in the scope of employment. Because Jake is a service manager, it is more likely that he has been acting within the scope of his employment than not. "Checking the basics . . . brakes, tires, transmission" is part...

It would be nearly impossible for Herman to prove otherwise.
2. Explain whether or not Herman is responsible for Jake's injury.

Herman is obviously not directly responsible for Jake's injury in the sense that he did not directly injure him. However, Herman is indirectly responsible for Jake's injury because of his methodology and approach to managing the shop. His wanting to cut corners and his directions to "do a lousy job, just do it quickly" suggest that Herman is placing undue pressure on employees. Jake may be able to prove that Herman has been negligent, which would make him responsible for Jake's injury. The negligence can easily be proven with regard to Herman's comment about wanting to do a lousy job and not monitoring Jake's progress. Alternatively, vicarious liability might apply in this case (Skyes 1988).

Herman is responsible for Jake's injury in the sense that he has been overscheduling oil changes to drive traffic to the shop. He has also been forcing Jake to work overtime without pay at the expense of his job: manipulating Jake into the Service Manager position so that overtime pay is no longer required by law. Yet the extra hours are placing sufficient pressure on the veteran worker. Under stress and the pressure to "do a lousy job" and "do it quickly," Jake states "I hurt my thumb because the manager forced me to work extra hours and I got so tired I couldn't tell the difference between my thumb and a spark plug." Jake can easily create a sound case in which Herman emerges as the party most responsible for Jake's injury.

3. Explain whether or not Jake should be paid the overtime.

Jake should ideally be offered the choice whether to work overtime for extra pay or to not work overtime at all. Overtime pay should be offered as an incentive, which might offset the stress and emotional strain that gives rise to physical injury. Given the…