Mr. Walton is the junior employee and is the person that was terminated. His termination was justified by complying with the Company’s policy not Mr. Walton’s work history, contributions and disciplinary record. The language of the handbook pertaining to nepotism is purely semantics and the Company’s past actions for terminating employees who violate this policy are justified. These terminated employees were aware they violated the rule even prior to the policy being incorporated in the handbook. The parties Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Articles IV, Employee Handbook, Memorandum of Agreement are the
The legal issue to be decided The issue is about the sexual harassment of an employee by his supervisor. The US employment law under Title VII is associated with the case as it allows employers to avoid harassment liability that does not involve adverse employment action such as termination (James and Bridget). 3. The holding in the case The US Supreme Court decided that CBS must use affirmative defense in this case. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff and acceptance claims under Title VII.
When a resignation is received, HR should take reasonable steps to do an outtake interview with the employee to find out why they are leaving and whether the company can take steps to improve the work environment. These outtake interviews should be kept in company records should a complaint arise, so that it can be demonstrated that the company did not have the requisite intent to constructive discharge employees. Finally, the company should make it a policy to address all employee complaints. This will not only foster better communication with employees, but allow the company to demonstrate that it has not constructive discharged an
Confidentiality - Workplace confidentiality is a framework of workplace procedures and policies designed to maintain the integrity of confidential or potentially compromising information handled in the workplace. For certain types of information, there are laws about how the information should be handled, designed to maintain privacy for people trusting companies with confidential information. For others, no specific laws dictate information handling practices, but the workplace develops best practices on the grounds that the information should be
Memo To: From: Date: Subject: The CEO Brenda Peeler, Elementary Division Manager August 23, 2012 Pending Constructive Discharge Litigation from a Former Employee In response to your request, please allow this memorandum to provide you with my findings and recommendations regarding the above-referenced matter. Overview: The case brought by our former employee alleges that the new policy regarding our production staff is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that constructive discharge is the basis of our former employee’s voluntary resignation. However, in order to make such a claim, the courts require evidence of either an aggravated situation beyond ordinary discrimination and/or an
If Pat does files a suit of wrongful discharge, we will be able to argue that he was fully aware of the at will employment policy. If he argues that reception of the personnel manual is an implied contract, we will have precedent from the Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. case, 819 A.2d 703 (Vt. 2002), in which the judge ruled that it was not a breach of contract when another company fired an employee without cause (Jennings, 2006). In this same case the judge argued that it is the right of the company to modify the employee agreement (or personnel manual). Our personnel manual is ambiguous (as are most manuals). Any attempt to challenge the at will status will be difficult because it will most likely be left up to the interpretation of the judge or
NEWCORP LEGAL SCENARIOS BUSINESS LAW Legal Encounter 1 In the given situation NewCorp is liable for having to follow the guidelines of what the handbook states on the given situation with Pat. Pat has the right to sue NewCorp given the fact that when he was hired on he signed the handbook which in it, it has a section that is Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan. In this section of the handbook it states that if any employee has a deficiency in their job they are to be put on a Corrective Action Plan and if the performance does not improve they can be terminated. Therefore in a court NewCorp can be found in breach of contract, since the employee handbook is a signed contract. As well as the fact that Pat feel that because of him voicing an opinion on the school board, which has nothing to do with NewCorp, this may
Prior to appointing counsel, what needs to be read out loud in open court? I think that the charges against the accused nee d to be read, a formal arrangement where the judge read the charges and informs the defendant of his/her rights. 2. What choices does Judge Fletcher have in appointing counsel for Slick Martin? He can appoint a public defender to Martin, which he doesn’t have to pay for or appoint counsel where he can pay
I observed the police prosecutors consulting the defendants’ legal agent on many occasions discussing alternatives to a prison sentence and what the prosecutors felt was fair in way of punishment for this defendant. The bench clerk is the person appointed to assist the Magistrate in the court
If no proof is provided, under the minority view of The Specific Intent Test, it could be concluded that the company did not want the employee or any other employee to quit, but to abide by the new policy in order to keep up with the demand of the company’s growth. If the company’s working conditions are found by the court to be reasonable, the claim will fall short under both tests. With regards to the current claim against the company, the change in the work schedule policy affects all production employees. It was not the intent of the company to make the change to cause working conditions to be so unbearable that an employee would quit, therefore it is not constructive discharge. For the protected class of Religion, Title VII states that covered employers shall not treat employees differently based on religion, harass employees based on religion, deny reasonable accommodation requests, or retaliate against employees (EEOC, 2012).