She cited Ford as authority to bring an action against her employer. The Court of Appeals rejected her claim, stating that there was no evidence that the employer was even aware of the co-worker’s misconduct until she quit. Furthermore, the conduct was described as an “unexpected injury-causing event” within the coverage of the workers’ compensation statute. This case suggests a possible trend toward erosion of the exclusivity ban of workers’ compensation when it comes to workplace violence. If an employer is presumably “on notice” that an employee displays episodes of violence and does nothing, or very little, for a protracted period of time and the employee ultimately engages in a violent act resulting in physical harm and emotional distress, can the injured worker bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the employer?
Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging ISSUE(S): Does the failure to take preventative steps against, a situation which results in some level of physical harm and/or unconsented offensive touching constitute [an] intentional tort(s)? If such failure to take preventative steps (and/or disclose) is an intentional tort, can the plaintiff obtain damages above and beyond compensatory damages? RULE(S): A tort is a “civil wrong” and there are essentially two main types, intentional torts and negligence. The former involves some form of intent or “recklessness” on the part of the defendant, whereas negligence is generally defined as the absence of the exercise of reasonable care by defendant, with harm occurring to the plaintiff as a result. The types of intentional torts implicated here are battery and fraud.
If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring. Here in this case, the delivery company hired these deliverers, one of whom had pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree burglary with an intention to commit theft from a dwelling. This is clearly a case of negligent hiring without a background check. Also liability for negligent hiring is limited to situations in which an unfit employee harmed others while on the employer’s premises or while using the employer’s property. In this case, delivering a new washing machine to the home of a customer indicates that the theft was conducted in the working hours and on the employer’s premises.
Chestnut contended that Mr. Reeves was terminated for inaccurate record keeping. Actions taken against Mr. Reeves were not in compliance with the federal employment laws: prima facie case of discrimination, sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the respondent’s nondiscriminatory explanation and the respondent’s explanation for his decision was pre-textual. Mr. Reeves was able to prove that the stated reasons was not the real reason for his discharge and age discrimination was the real reason for termination. REEVES v. SANDERSON A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Sanderson stated that their reason for terminating Mr. Reeves was due to inaccurate record keeping.
Issue What is considered misconduct under New Mexico law? Rule The New Mexico Supreme Court explained in the case that misconduct is in the disregard of an employer’s interest and acting in deliberate violation of the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee. The court also stated that they do not recognize misconduct as inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure in good performance. Analysis According to the New Mexico Supreme Court’s definition of misconduct there most certainly be a blatant disregard of the employer’s interest. In this case Natalie did not show much if at all any blatant disregard to her employer.
Negligent Tort Tort is actually termed under law of tort, which clearly defined it as those situations or conditions where the illegal conduct of one party causes harm to other that is party A had to face loss due to unethical or wrongful deed of party B. Tort can be either negligent that is unintentional or intentional. (Larson, 2003).Examples of intentional torts is fraud, defamation, offence, insult, assault or interference etc. For example, during a business meeting an employer suffers from a reputation loss or insult due to the wrong deeds of another employer, to whom he had fight. Negligence tort refers to the conditions under which the law will hold an individual, who has a duty of care to another individual; that is legal personnel will grab the person who is responsible for any harm or damage his negligence may have caused the injured party.
Since the company excludes liability for manufacturer defects to the product and prejudiced to consumer rights to refund or even replace the product whereupon, If a consumer believes that this term of the contract being an unfair term he can complain to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) or to one of several consumer-related organizations that can act against unfair consumer contracts. Such a complaint may lead to court action. As an analysis for the reasonableness in the light of UCTA 1977, the company has to meet the following requirements: The contract / notice must not include terms which to exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract, providing an inadequate service, or providing goods that have been misdescribed, are not of satisfactory quality or are not fit for their purpose. This is the case unless such a term is reasonable, although exceptions exist, for example when
The company would also be found liable, as they had not taken steps to protect the safety of an employee. Compensation as well as a fine and notice to improve systems could be incurred. A failure to do so could lead to a prohibition notice
We believe that both the employee and the employer were unethical in this case because it illustrates a degree of moral intensity. The employee had a due diligence to the employer and should have brought his concerns to higher management instead of blogging it on a low profile under a false name. The employer had a due diligence to the employee and should have expressed their concern to the employee. The employer could of asked the employee if he could have deleted the blog or edit it so that the name of the employer was not mentioned. The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee.
That is when the conduct is unwelcome; the conduct is severe, pervasive, and regarded by the claimant as so hostile or offensive as to alter his or her conditions of employment; and the conduct is such that a reasonable person would find it hostile or offensive. From the case Lavonda is complaining to the HR manageress Karline that she can’t get things done due to the situation on grounds. Allen is also undermining Lavonda’s position with her sales staff. To assert a hostile work environment, an employee need not prove that it seriously affected his or her psychological well-being nor caused an injury; the decisive issue is whether the conduct interfered with the claimant’s work performance. Failure to remedy alleged instances of sexual harassment: