Supreme Court and Health

Adams vs. Uno Restaurants, Inc.

Gerald K. Adams, the plaintiff, had been employed by Uno Restaurants, Inc., the defendant, for several years. On March 20, 1996, Adams arrived for his nighttime line cooking shift at Uno Restaurants in Warwick. Few minutes into his shift, Adams noticed that the restaurant's kitchen floor was soaked with a foul-smelling liquid that came from the drains. The plaintiff then complained of illness and went home and then notified the Department of Health regarding the draining issue at the restaurant's kitchen. The department responded through visiting the restaurant and ordering it to be closed that night after discovering the health hazard brought by the drainage problem. When the restaurant reopened the following day after sanitizing the kitchen, the restaurant's manager, David Badot, called Adams into his office and shouted at him while trying to find out whether he informed the Department of Health. Adam shouted back at him and acknowledged that he notified the department about the drainage issue. After the altercation, the plaintiff left the restaurant, was arrested, and ultimately filed a lawsuit against the defendant on the premise that he was illegally dismissed for notifying the Department of Health about the drainage problem. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adams and awarded him $7,500 in damages based on the Whistleblowers' Protection Act of the state.

The main issue before the Supreme court was to determine whether its unlawful for an employer to react against his/her employee for contacting the Department of Health for unsafe conditions in the kitchen. When determining the case, the Supreme Court utilized the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which is a federal statute requiring employers to establish a safe working environment for employees (FindLaw, n.d.). Based on this law, employers are required to establish a working environment that is free of dangerous conditions that could harm the health and safety of employees. The main objective of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970) is to protect employees from unfavorable working conditions and environments that endanger their health and safety. In this regard, employers are required to establish health and safety standards relating to their specific kind of workplace and nature of organizational operations. Additionally, the law empowers employees and their representatives to file complaints with relevant authorities against their employers if there is a serious health and/or safety hazard within the workplace. Employees have the right to file such complaints under OSHA regardless of whether they know that the employer is violating certain standards of this federal statute. When determining the case, the Supreme Court also examined the state's Whistleblowers' Protection Act, which informed its decision to award the plaintiff $7,500 in damages for the financial loss and emotional distress he suffered following his termination.