Whirlpool Corporation Case the Subjective

Whirlpool Corporation Case

The Subjective Argument

The employer in this case tried to impose the subjective standard of risk assessment on employees. In principle, the subjective argument made by the company was that, in its assessment and characterization of the risk faced by employees, the risk of injury associated with the supervisor's orders was insufficient to constitute a reasonable fear of injury (Boatright, 2008). Since the fear of injury from following the supervisor's orders was not a reasonable fear, the refusal to follow instructions was legitimate grounds for a formal reprimand or disciplinary action.

In general, the only criterion for the subjective argument is that the employer honestly believes its characterization of the nature or extent of the risk. As long as the employer makes the argument in good faith, there are no other criteria for the elements of the subjective beliefs about the risks faced by employees (Boatright, 2008).

The Objective Argument

The objective standard of belief is much more strict than the subjective standard because it must satisfy a consistent set of standards, definitions, and characterizations over which the employer has no authority to ignore or suspend (Boatright, 2008). In this case, there was substantial factual evidence that the dangers feared by the employees were, in fact, supported by logical inferences. Previous accidents of the nature feared by the employees had occurred several times already, including one that was fatal for the employee involved. The fact that the employer was already in the process of trying to mitigate the very risks feared by the employees is also objective evidence that the specific risks associated with employees crawling on the net were reasonable concerns (Boatright, 2008).

Conversely, had there never been any history of previous accidents or falls associated with the netting despite regular clearing procedures performed by employees, their refusal to comply with instructions to clear the netting would not have been as reasonable. In the Whirlpool case, the objective assessment of the risk would have suggested that the fears of the employees were reasonable based on the previous history of the very types of accidents they refused to take.

The Reasonable-Person Argument

The reasonable standard argument is similar to the objective argument except that it allows for another element outside of the analysis. Specifically, it is possible for the same risk to be more or less reasonable based on (1) the nature of the work involved or the industry, and (2) on any difference between what the risks are in fact and what they might appear to be (even erroneously) from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable person with knowledge of the same facts and circumstances (Boatright, 2008).