Worker Compensation and Termination

WORKER COMPENSATION AND WRONGFUL TERMINATION 1

Worker Compensation and Wrongful Termination

Case Scenario 1

Georgia’s case presents several ethical and legal issues related to employment. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights raises legal issues related to racial discrimination and retaliation at the workplace. Title VII covers all employers with at least fifteen employees and makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of national origin, gender, religion, color, or race (Fleischer, 2018). The scenario company has fifteen employees, which makes it eligible for Title VII coverage. Further, despite working mostly from home, Georgia qualifies as an employee given that she is included in the company’s payroll (Fleischer, 2018).

Georgia’s boss’ joke about calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers (ICE) if a customer uses the app from a location around Trump’s building could be categorized as disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII (Fleischer, 2018). Disparate treatment discrimination refers to any form of differential treatment that disadvantages certain employees on the basis of factors prohibited under Title VII, up to and including in the intangible work environment (Fleischer, 2018). Courts have ruled that an employer could be guilty of disparate treatment discrimination if their work environment tolerates or promotes sexual or racial slurs that could be reasonably considered demeaning and offensive (Fleischer, 2018).

The employer’s comment, though an isolated incident, amounts to discrimination because the context signalled discriminatory views about immigrants with the intent to demean or offend. The rest of the employees reportedly engage in a nervous laughter after the comment, an indicator that the comment was offensive from a reasonable person’s perspective. The employer could thus be accused of promoting a work environment that fosters discrimination based on immigration status (Painter & Holmes, 2012). The isolated comment could serve as a basis for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to order an investigation to determine if a pattern of discrimination exists.

The human resource manager could handle this issue in two ways, both of which seek to rebuild confidence that the organization remains committed to fair treatment and non-discrimination. First, the human resource manager needs to demonstrate its commitment to fair practices by including non-discrimination provisions in employee contracts and handbooks. Further, they need to introduce regular trainings to sensitize employees about what amounts to discrimination at work, how to file a complaint, and the organization’s duty to prevent non-discrimination. An effective non-discrimination policy may serve as evidence that the organization is committed to equal treatment for all employees.

Secondly, the employer may be subject to claims of retaliation under Title VII. The Act prohibits employers from taking adverse retaliatory action against an employee who files a discrimination complaint (Fleischer, 2018). Georgia had filed a complaint about the employer’s demeaning comment with the company’s human resource department. She suffered an accident shortly after, which left her incapacitated and unable to work. The company’s decision to cancel her internet and cell phone and to not settle her worker compensation claim could attract an additional retaliation claim. This is particularly because Georgia may opt to not proceed with the case due to her undocumented status.

Thirdly, there is a legal question on whether Georgia is entitled to worker compensation given the circumstances of her accident. The employer’s refuses to settle her worker compensation claims, arguing that at the time of the accident, she was using the app like any customer, and not working. As the human resource manager, the most appropriate action would be to advise the employer on the course and scope of employment in worker compensation. Worker compensation policies are provided under both federal and state law. New York worker compensation law (WCL Section 2 and 3) accords all employees the right to be compensated for injuries suffered in the course of employment regardless of their immigration status (New York Commission on Human Rights, 2019).

Generally, an employee is eligible for compensation under WCL if they sustain injuries or die while working. Further, an employee is considered to have been working if they were specifically engaged in a work-related activity at the time of the accident (Fleischer, 2018). The only time an employee is not entitled to worker compensation is if they were injured while on a personal errand or a distinct departure from work. Georgia’s decision to go for a run after work amounts to a personal errand. However, when she decides to use the app to locate a bathroom as a means to test its accuracy, she engages in a work-related activity. As such, Georgia may be considered to have been working at the time of the accident and hence, eligible for compensation under WCL. Georgia becomes partially blind when she hits her head during the accident. Since blindness caused by head trauma can mostly be corrected, she is entitled to up to two-thirds of her lost wage-earning capacity (Fleischer, 2018). Failure to compensate her accordingly could result in investigations and penalties by the New York Worker Compensation Board.

Finally, the organization may also face suits under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibits employers from hiring undocumented immigrants (New York Commission on Human Rights, 2019). Employers have a duty to verify the legal status of potential employees before engaging them. Failure to do so could be interpreted as a means to shield oneself from employer obligations such as worker compensation since undocumented workers are unlikely to file legal cases. Furthermore, under the New York Local Law 52 of 1989, the city requires all employers who decide to hire undocumented immigrants to provide the same legal protection to such workers as their legal employees (New York Commission on Human Rights, 2019). The human resource manager needs to advise the company’s ownership that under these provisions, the organization may not use Georgia’s undocumented status as leverage to fail to provide benefits or reasonable accommodation for injuries suffered at work.

Case Scenario 4

The human resource manager is tasked with advising on whether Sinan has a claim for wrongful termination. Wrongful terminations often cause workplace disruptions, reduce employee morale, and open up the organization to public relation issues and huge legal burdens. In assessing whether Sinan’s termination was proper, Fleischer (2018) advises that employers consider several crucial elements.

The first is whether the organization has a well-documented, business related cause to terminate and can clearly support its decision (Fleischer, 2018). New York state law dictates that employers fire employees only for cause (Aamodt, 2022). Having worked for the organization for six years, Sinan has built a strong employment relationship and is engaged under an employment contract. Employment contracts outline different duties on the employee, including a duty of honesty and loyalty, a duty to refrain from behaviour that threatens the company’s operations, and a duty to report for duty in good condition. A breach of any of the substantial duties can be legal cause for termination (Fleischer, 2018).

Sinan failed to demonstrate honesty and loyalty when he lied about being unwell to stay away from work and engaged Dr Pierce to lie to the organization on his behalf. Further, Sinan was a crucial part of the organization in his front desk role, particularly because he was tasked with handling certain repeat and VIP guests at a time when the hotel was receiving a series of international guests. Moreover, being the only employee fluent in six languages, Sinan was crucial in helping the organization handle its international clients. Given Sinan’s crucial role, his absence from work posed a substantial threat to the hotel’s operations. Thus, Sinan substantially breached his duty in the employment relationship, which serves as a legal cause for termination.

The second factor to be considered in assessing whether a termination is unlawful is whether or not the employer fulfilled their obligations in the employment relationship. In a case like Sinan’s, an employee could sue the employer for inflicting emotional distress by forcing them to work under the circumstances posed by the pandemic. However, such an argument may be weak because the nature of Sinan’s job required him to be physically present at the workplace. Furthermore, the organization took steps to protect its on-site employees by providing enough latex gloves and putting up barriers in line with social distancing requirements. Sinan failed to notify the employer that he was allergic to latex gloves until after he was dismissed, which rids the latter of liability. If Sinan had complained about the gloves and the employer failed to address the complaint, then the organization would be liable for inflicting emotional distress.