Marshall 445 U.S. 1 (1980) the court found that “circumstances may sometimes exist in which the employee justifiably believes that the express statutory arrangement does not sufficiently protect him from death or serious injury” (Jennings, M, 2006, pg. 748). The safety concern expressed by Paul may fall into the circumstances described by the court above. Additionally, since Paul has already contacted OSHA any negative action regarding his employment may be viewed as a violation of Paul’s rights. “If an inspection is the result of an employee complaint, the employer cannot take any retaliatory action against that employee (Jennings, M, 2006, pg.
If the employee performance does not improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, termination will follow. (Schumacher, 2008 p.13) Pat contends, in the scenario, that he did sign a statement of understanding regarding NewCorp’s at will employment policy. However, Pat believes that the aforementioned clause in the personnel manual should render his termination invalid. As well, Pat recently became vocal at a school board meeting on a very unpopular issue. He contends that, as a result, senior management at NewCorp became noticeably unfriendly and that this played an integral part in the decision to terminate his
It appears as though Ms. Tom is suing Kresge’s, Co. for negligence due to her slip and fall accident that happened in their store. She believes Kresge is liable for her injury because it occurred as a result of a condition created by Kresge’s "mode of operation." Mrs. Tom contends that Kresge’s should be held liable because the condition that she said caused the accident had existed for a length of time that if Kresge had exercised normal use of ordinary care, Kresge’s employees at the store should have known of the condition and taken action to remedy it. The “mode of operation” rule looks to a business’s choice of a particular mode of operation and not the particular events surrounding the plaintiff’s accident. Typically, under the rule, the plaintiff is not required to prove notice if the defendant
However, Phillips was never provided with a copy of the rules and procedures for arbitration proclaimed by Hooters. Consequently, Phillips refused to arbitrate the dispute. History In November of 1996, Hooters (D) preemptively filed suit to force Phillips (P) to comply with arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 4. P disputed their claims on the basis that “the agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable.” P filed individual and class counterclaims against D for “violations of Title VII and for a declaration that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable against the class.” In response, D requested that the district court halt further legal process on the counterclaims until after arbitration as required by 9 U.S.C.
The employer’s facility is licensed as residential care facility, which omits it from Nursing Home Care Act. The second law “Residential Care Act” is governing living conditions such as lighting, temperature limits, ventilation, and other physical conditions. The employer argued that this act was not mentioned in district court so it should not apply and also the language was very general and not specific enough to rise to the level of a clear statement of public policy. The third law is “Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Act”, which makes stealing a controlled substance a criminal offense, but due to lack of clear and specific argument it was not applicable to discharge case. Broom and Miller’s appeal was not able establish how these laws obligates to their discharge case.
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
You could lose your job and you could have legal action taken against you. | 1.2 Describe how the duty of care affects own work role and how it contributes to the safeguarding and protection of individuals Duty of Care contributes to the safeguarding or protection of individuals | In your role you have a duty of care to raise any concerns you may have about any aspect of your work. These can range from inadequate working conditions, poor equipment, poor practice by other staff; to raising concerns about potential abuse cases and situations of neglect. | It is your duty of care to safeguard individuals from harm. All employees should report any concerns of abuse they have.
Managing Operations Courtney Nelson Human Resources: Western Governor’s University A. Constructive Discharge Under the doctrine of Title VII in the Civil Rights Law, Constructive Discharge is when the employer creates working conditions that are so intolerable, that the employee would be compelled to resign (Saxe, I., 1987). The majority of courts who withhold Constructive Discharge as a reasonable form of discrimination against an employee, only require that the plaintiff prove that the employer deliberately created working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel that it was necessary to resign (Saxe, I., 1987). Constructive Discharge is relevant in the scenario of the employee quitting after
The idea of the university athletic department could have been made to pay financial restitution to the victims instead of taking away games. The family of Jerry Sandusky could have been charged with defamation of character on the university by his actions. Removing the statue of Joe Peterno should have never occurred because he earned that title as well as those young men who won the games. The outcome is still the same in regard that no matter how much you fine or punish this university the actions taken upon these victims can never be taken back. The outcome by the NCAA has sent a message to other universities and colleges to prove that punishments are far worse than could ever be expected.
The US and Iraq should not go to war because there’s no real justification, Iraq does not pose a clear or present threat, and the US is less safe as a result. As stated, there’s no real vindication for going to war with Iraq. There was no Iraqi connection to September 11th and Iraq has not threatened war on the US. 9/11 was connected to a private group of sick and dismal people, not Iraq. other then September 11th, there is nothing even moderately close to a considerable “attack on the US”.