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 directly with Title VII. Still, the burden of proof, as is underlying in the constitutionality of our criminal and civil law systems, lay with the plaintiff. Thus, even if such incidences are said to have occurred, the judicial examination of any case would demand a prying deconstruction of the claim and the individual making said claim. Therefore, it will fall upon Paula to prove that Sam had made inappropriate and unwanted sexual advances toward her and further, that her refusal to be involved further with Sam was the grounds for the rejection of her request for transfer.

From the perspective of Newcorp, though there is a potential to damage the credibility of her case by noting that she had been voluntarily involved with Sam and inappropriately at that. By blurring the line between the point at which their mutual indiscretions ended and his singular indiscretions began, it may be possible to counter claims of sexual harassment. However, the gender discrimination issue relating to a hypothetical pregnancy will constitute a legal transgression.

Legal Encounter 3

Paul's refusal to work in a space which he finds dangerous or physically intolerable reflects a justifiable claim against the maintenance of facilities at Newcorp and manifests as cause for OSHA to investigate the conditions there. The claim on Paul's part that the pulp shredder with which he was working was in too narrow a space resulted in Newcorp's moving the machine to a difference location, which Paul claimed also was inadequate.

Because Newcorp's internal safety inspectors deemed this new site adequately safe, Newcorp should be willing to...

There could be significant consequences should this compliance not be found. In cases where OSHA, at either the federal or state level, may find that an organization has not met proper standards for safety, it is authorized by the United States government to enforce a number of actions. Primarily, OSHA reserves the right to require an organization to make all necessary alterations to its facilities in order to ensure that it is within the coded set of standards considered by the central government to be adequate for the prevention of injury, accident or the development of persistent health problems.
Should OSHA determine that, in the absence of adequate compliance with the necessary standards, a facility is unsafe for operation or inhabitance, the agency is entitled to enforce a temporary or permanent closure to said facility. Thereafter, its owners may either achieve reopening by bringing a facility up to compliance with current standards or may be forced to disband the facility altogether. In the case of the latter possibility, many old and decaying building, or those with poorly constructed ventilation and electricity systems, could be subject to scrutiny and permanent closure.

Because Newcorp cannot afford these consequences, any external inspection must be preceded by an internal review ensuring that initial safety findings had been accurate. With respect to Paul's claim that he has developed claustrophobia, Newcorp should be willing to subject this claim to medical and psychological scrutiny before considering the possibility of concession to worker's compensation demands.

Works Cited:

Jessica, S.N. (2008). at-Will Employment Dismissal Law. EHOW. Online at http://www.ehow.com/about_5272311_atwill-employment-dismissal-law.html

Lang, G. (1994). Women's Shelter Sex Harassment. Men's Voices Magazine. Online at www.menweb.org

Brown, NS. (1994). Sexual Harassment -- Fact v. Myth. Men's Voices Magazine. Online at .