Department Employed About 100 Men and Women

¶ … department employed about 100 men and women to create the wiring and connect it to different universal couplings so that speedometers, oil gauges, and other instruments would work. The final product, an under-dash wiring harness, was sent to the assembly plant for installation.

Sam developed a relationship with one of his employees, Paula, and they began dating. Paula later ended the relationship with Sam. Sam wanted to continue dating Paula, and he began exhibiting unwelcome behaviors, even after she told him to stop. Sam suggested that Paula's work might be suffering from a lack of interest.

Paula decided she could no longer work with Sam and applied for a transfer to the wire-coating department, which was not under his control. Sam blocked the transfer, citing evidence that chemicals used in wire coatings could harm an early-state fetus. Because Paula could become pregnant, Sam argued, NewCorp could not take the chance of being liable for causing a child to be born with a birth defect. Paula believed this was Sam's way of controlling her and that, even if it was not, it was illegal discrimination.

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.

The issue here is that Sam, a supervisor of NewCorp, is practicing discrimination to one of his subordinates because she broke off an affair with him. He is giving her difficulty in work and blocking her promotion.

New Corp has hired Sam as one of their managers. It seems to me that they are responsible for his actions.

I base this conclusion on the Staub v. Proctor Hospital case that has recently occurred where the Supreme Court judged the company for being guilty for allowing a manager to fire as certain employee due to the manager's subjective reasons.

Staub was an employee at the hospital and a member of the Army Reserve and some of his supervisors not only had political bias against the Army but also disliked having to change their routines to fit those of Staub. They therefore deliberately engineered certain rules that applied specially to Staub's condition and made it difficult for him to comply with them. As a result they fired him. The court ruled that Staub had been illegally fired due to his supervisors' hostility towards his service in uniform, a violation of USERRA - the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.

They concluded that if "the company fires an employee based on a supervisor's recommendation, and the supervisor was motivated by an illegal reason, the company may be liable for illegal discrimination" (Kuntz, nd). The same applies in this case too. The ruling of the Supreme Court in the Staub's case was based on Title 7 of the United States Code which states that discrimination of all sorts is illegal - including race, religious or sex discrimination.

NewCorps accordingly is guilty for Sam's conduct towards Paula. They either have to remove Sam, or accede to Paula's request for transfer. They should also provide their employees with employment discrimination training aside form warning Sam that his actions have legal ramifications. They should also independently investigate Sam's conduct to see if he has perpetrated discrimination to any other worker. (Kuntz, nd)

Scenario 2: NewCorp employed Paul as a senior maintenance technician, which required him to work in confined spaces to repair equipment. Repairing the pulp shredder was particularly difficult because the space where Paul worked was narrow. After an employee was injured when working on the machine, NewCorp attempted to relocate it to create more space, but nearby building support beams did not allow for relocation.

Paul refused to work on the machine, saying that the work space was too confining and dangerous. The NewCorp safety manager reviewed the area and deemed it safe. Paul said he became claustrophobic because of working in such confined spaces, and this condition arose from his employment. This statement makes the situation a worker compensation issue. Paul called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to complain about NewCorp requiring him to work in a dangerous situation. In addition to calling OSHA, Paul threatened to get a lawyer and sue NewCorp. Management was not sure what legal principles apply to the circumstances in this situation.

What specific regulatory compliance issues arise in this scenario? How should NewCorp address those issues? How should NewCorp manage the legal risk associated with those issues-

This is how OSHA defines a confined space:

A confined space has limited or restricted means for entry or exit, and it is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. Confined spaces include, but are not limited to underground vaults, tanks, storage bins, manholes, pits, silos, process vessels, and pipelines. OSHA uses the term "permit-required confined space" (permit space) to describe a confined space that has one or more of the following characteristics: contains or has the potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere; contains a material that has the potential to engulf an entrant; has walls that converge inward or floors that slope downward and taper into a smaller area which could trap or asphyxiate an entrant; or contains any other recognized safety or health hazard, such as unguarded machinery, exposed live wires, or heat stress.( http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/confinedspaces/index.html)

All of these criteria would have to be evaluated in order to see whether or not the place where Paul was working fits the OSHA's definition of 'confined space. The fact, moreover, that an employee was injured by a machine whilst working in that self-same spot may give added credence to Paul's claim. On the other hand, one has to determine why the employee was injured -- whether it was due to constriction of the place.

NewCorps had attempted to extend the place. The fact that they were unable to due to impediment of support beams is no excuse.