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.
¶ … 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)
Analysis
When you analyze this situation in comparison with this law, it is clear that Pat could make an effective argument that NewCorp did not follow these provisions. The reason why, is because there is no track record of any kind of employee performance issues in the past. It was not until Pat voiced his opinions about various political issues (in a public forum), that he became a problem employee. In this aspect, one could argue that NewCorp violated the law (due to the fact that there is no documentation of any kind past employee behavioral issues). As a result, NewCorp has a responsibility to show a pattern of cause for Pat's termination...
Since it does not exist, this means that this will become liability that will hurt them in any kind of civil case. As far as Pat is concerned, he has a responsibility to prove that he did everything possible, to live up to the various provisions of the employment contract. This reduces his liabilities, as he can show that his basic civil rights were violated (due to his political opinions).
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.…
Bibliography
Cheeseman, H. (2010). Employment, Worker Protection and Immigration Laws. Business Law. (pp. 486-498). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Cheeseman, H. (2010). Equal Opportunity in Employment. Business Law. (pp. 511 -- 527). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Cheeseman, H. (2010). Labor Law and Collective Bargaining. Business Law. (pp. 499-510). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
This collection comprises health-care and social service employees such as visiting nurses, psychiatric evaluators, and probation workers; community employees such as gas and water utility workers, phone and cable TV employees, and letter carriers; retail workers; and taxi drivers (OSHA Fact Sheet, 2002). The best defense that companies can give is to institute a no tolerance rule in regards to workplace aggression against or by their workers. The company should
Fixtures are considered part of personal property, but in cases where they become a part of real property and cannot be removed, they are considered part of real property. Building on a plot of land is a fixture that is considered part of real property, similarly things that are fixed with the real property and can not be removed without damage can be considered part of real property. In case
Risk Management Within a Healthcare Environment Medication errors and falls are among the top events that can cause harm to patients, and consequently, increase the costs of hospitalization. In a healthcare environment, a professional nurse can be liable for damages if her conduct is below the standard of care, which cause injuries to patients. This paper explores the concept of falls, medication errors, and nursing liability. The study recommends how nurses
NewCorp Legal Encounter What liabilities and rights do NewCorp and Pat have in this situation? What legal principles, such as statutory or case law, support those liabilities and rights? NewCorp is liable to follow the guidelines of the handbook outlining how to deal with unsatisfactory employees, but they also have the right to dismiss an employee at will. Pat on the other hand, has the right to be informed about the indication of
Mudra did not act according to this principle when he ignored the warning signs of Daniel's condition. The best course of action would therefore have been a focus on beneficence/non-maleficence rather than upon respect for autonomy. Daniel's age is also an important factor. Concomitantly with his condition, Daniel's immaturity and a desire to "prove" his independence to his parents, could have contributed to his death. When treating such young persons,
Double Jeopardy The ancient common rule prohibition on multiple trials, known as the double jeopardy, is a procedural protection that forbids the prosecution of an offender for an unlawful offence. The offender, in this case, may have been previously acquitted or convicted following a trial on the merits by a legal system of a competent criminal jurisdiction. Double jeopardy arises when there is a prior criminal trial. In many states of