Saudi Arabia and Laws

¶ … Quinn v. Mongo case. At issue is a matter where an employee is a clear victim of age discrimination. However, there are more than one dimension to the case. One issue is that there is a home corporation and a subsidiary. The former has age discrimination laws but the latter does not. Also an issue is that the employee was signed onto a contract that required notice and a few other things but much of those were not followed.

Lastly, there is the issue of what damages (if any) should be extended to the employee. While there are a few mitigating circumstances, Mongo is going to have to bite the bullet and do the right thing. The first question to be answered is what the legal issues are in the case. The first was mentioned in the introduction and that would be what is a clear-cut case of employment discrimination (Lau & Johnson, 2012).

What happened in Saudi Arabia is a clear violation of the ADEA even if Saudi Arabia has no such laws. Also at issue is that Quinn was to have received four weeks' notice before being terminated and that clearly did not happen as he was removed immediately. The most important issue to consider is the differing laws and standards that exist between the two different countries. While Saudi Arabia is obviously "behind" when it comes to age and other discrimination laws, this does not absolve Mongo in the least.

If they operate in Saudi Arabia or other countries with lesser laws, Mongo still has to abide by the laws of their home country and they also have to abide by the employment contract standards that exist in the same. Indeed, Mongo would have to comply with the laws of both countries or they would face ire and legal action from the country (or countries) where they fell short. Hammer surely knew about the contract but acted on the whim of the Royal Commission anyway and had Quinn removed.

The only mitigating item for Mongo is that Quinn refused other projects that were offered to him after that. However, Mongo had a burden to ensure that Quinn was not treated unfairly and Quinn had no burden to accept other contracts (Lau & Johnson, 2016). As for the ethical issues involved, both Hammer and Quinn obviously erred when it came to the situation. The one big thing that SAMCO can point to is that the Royal Commission insisted.

However, if a condition of SAMCO doing business in Saudi Arabia, whether it be for the government or anyone else, is to blatantly ignore the rules, ethics and standards that SAMCO personally follows or that is required to by their home nation's government, then SAMCO needs to say "no thanks" and find business elsewhere.

SAMCO/Mongo and Hammer should have said that they will not enter an agreement that requires them to break or bend their employment agreements or the laws or ethics that they are held to (by law or by personal standard). Obviously, Mongo/SAMCO will not want to turn away business. That being said, they have a burden to do so because entering the business agreement with the Royal Commission and/or within Saudi Arabia in general would cause them to do things that are unethical or illegal.

Unless the Saudi counterparts can guarantee that they will not ask or required SAMCO to do so (preferably in writing), Mongo needs to do business elsewhere (EEOC, 2016). Conclusion In looking for revenue and business, many firms go overseas in the form of going to Latin America, the Middle East and other places. However, something that comes up is that the laws and standards are different in those other countries. Quite often, the standards and rules are lower, especially as it relates to employee rights and discrimination rules.

However, firms from the United States and other more modern countries need to stand resolute and make sure that they do not bend or break the rules.