Worker Compensation and Wrongful Termination

Case Scenario 1

Georgias 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 companys payroll (Fleischer, 2018).

Georgias boss joke about calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers (ICE) if a customer uses the app from a location around Trumps 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 employers 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 persons 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 organizations 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 employers demeaning comment with the companys human resource department. She suffered an accident shortly after, which left her incapacitated and unable to work. The companys 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 employers...…substantial threat to the hotels 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 Sinans, 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 Sinans 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.

Further, the employer has a duty to allow the employee to defend himself (Painter & Holmes, 2012). Sinan got to defend himself, citing a latex allergy and anxiety disorder in his defence. One may argue that the organization could have first issued a warning given Sinans exceptional performance and positive reviews. However, as long as the employer can support their business-relateddecision to terminate, it is unlikely that courts will question this decision. This is particularly because there is no evidence that the organization acted out of malice or retaliation (Fleischer, 2018). Based on these arguments, a…