Even though Mr. Whitter resigned prior to the policy change taking effect, the potential for liability remains for back wages and possible punitive damages. According to Finnegan, (Finnegan, 1986), courts have developed two tests to determine when an employee has been constructively discharged by a discriminating employer. Using the majority view, an employee who resigns after being subjected to discrimination of a protected class is determined to have been constructively discharged if a “reasonable” person would have found the conditions intolerable. This is defined as the Reasonable Person Test. Conversely, under the minority view, the burden of proof lies more with the plaintiff showing not only intolerable conditions but that the employer created these conditions causing the resignation.
RE: Mr. John Doe’s Willful Termination on December 12, 2011 Executive Summary Based on the facts of the case, I believe we are not liable in the discrimination suit brought by Mr. Doe. Constructive Discharge Constructive discharge is defined as “if an employer's discriminatory acts result in working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign.” (Finnegan, 1986) Courts generally follow one of two “litmus” tests to determine if a person who willfully terminated their employment was constructively discharged and should receive compensation as a result of the termination. In the majority view, “an employee who resigns after being subjected to unlawful discrimination is said to have been constructively discharged if a reasonable person would have found the discriminatory conditions to be intolerable.” (Finnegan, 1986) The minority view is that the complainant “must show not only that conditions were intolerable, but also that the employer created those conditions with the specific intent of forcing them to resign.” (Finnegan, 1986) Mr. Doe is a member if the production staff. The company changed the production staff’s working hours to a rolling 12 hour shift four days a week that could occur on any day of the week. If the company’s intent was to get Mr. Doe or anyone on production staff to resign by changing the production staff’s hours, it is possible that the actions of the company could be considered a constructive discharge.
It would also buttress any claims he may make under the “Whistle Blowers Act.” In regards to The Blue Mountain Company’s policy on removing intoxicated or drug induced individuals to the periphery of their property, it demonstrated a selfish disregard for public safety. Such a policy should have been vetted through their legal department to include consultation with local authorities. This policy presents great risk not only to the public, but possibly to the security guard who may be cited, fired, or part of a legal action brought by a public citizen as a result of a serious event occurring as a result of removing people from the premises. Additional risks are cited below. This invocation also discharges interaction between the company, its employees, and supporting personnel.
Regarding the case of Mr. Bilbo Baggins litigation against Orc Industries Corporation for wrongful dismissal, there are quite a number of relevant legal principles and concepts that apply to the plaintiff’s case. Firstly, when Mr. Baggins was terminated by Orc Industries Corp. they failed to provide him with reasonable notice, which would imply that the company intended to terminate Mr. Baggins on the grounds of just cause. Just cause is a term that is applied when a company intends to terminate an employee for “Employee conduct that amounts to a fundamental breach of employment contract”. More specifically, just cause exists when an employee is guilty of one or more of the following; a serious misconduct (or several minor misconducts over a period of time), habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, willful disobedience, or incompatible conduct. (DuPlessis, O'Byrne, Enman & Gunz, 2011) Orc Industries Corp. however, did not cite any other reasons for terminating Mr. Baggins apart from “dishonesty, and coming to work drunk”.
This action has the potential of stopping production completely and bringing the company to the brink of bankruptcy, at which point the company may be forced to agree to the employee (i.e., union) terms of employment. On the other hand, the employee can control his or her work effort on the job, can seek to change employment practices internally, or can leave the company whenever he or she wants. 2. What are the limitations of disparate impact statistics as indicators of potential staffing discrimination? Sample Response: Disparate impact statistics describe existing demographic patterns, but they do not necessarily explain the reasons these patterns exist.
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing PA205: Unit 7 Assignment Suzette N Pryce October 14, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO: Professor Patrick Cleveland FROM: Suzette N Pryce DATE: October 14, 2014 RE: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct DISCUSSION The first issue presented in this case is whether Natalie is entitled to unemployment compensation and should the New Mexico Employment Security Board (NMESB) have granted her this compensation. An employee can be dismissed if it is determined that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 51-1-7 (2013).
Lei may also want to compare the past performance with the outdated handbook to determine how the missed opportunity was and what benefits or impact the new handbook will have on the employees going forward which would result into a written warning for any violation. The fourth and final step of the process is to take corrective action against all those involved in the violation that occurred. As far as the hours paid that were not worked, the corrective action that could be taken is to have the employee deduct the hours
Anitra Martin Legal risk and opportunity in employment September 29, 2009 Law/531 Legal encounter 1: Newcorp has the right under the common law of employee termination at will. This is a contract of employment for other than a definite term is terminable at will by either party. This common law employer may dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong without being guilty of legal wrong. The only way that pat can prove that they let him go unjustly he would have to prove that they showed discrimination towards him based on race, sex, religion, or age. Legal encounter 2: Newcorp has a liability of sexual harassment because of the fact that Paula ended their relationship and
If managers neglected to tell workers of the risks, they would go directly against OSHA’s goals. OSHA’s goals are to reduce occupational hazards through intervention, promote a safety and health environment through compliance, cooperative programs and strong leadership and maximize effectiveness and efficiency by strengthening capabilities and infrastructure (OSHA). The text discusses that workers’ rights include needing to know all information and the basis of the assumed risks to decide whether the risks are acceptable to them. It is the employer’s responsibility to educate their employees and the employees’ right to refuse to work in such conditions (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2009, p. 110). The case study asks
Employment-at-will gives employers the right to legally terminate an employee from a job whether the reason is good, bad or none at all (Halbert and Ingulli, 2012). So, by law I have the right to terminate Jennifer for not being productive and efficient in her daily tasks. I will take several steps before I actually come up with my final decision. As a manager for the accounting department I want what is best for the company and my employees. The company as a whole will do anything necessary to provide help and support of the staff members.