...Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F.Supp. 63 (D.Mass. 1989) In this case Lawrence J. Korb was terminated from his position as vice president for Washington operations of Raytheon Corporation simply because he expressed views, publicly is direct conflict with the corporation’s economic interest. Korb was denied his claim for wrongful discharge and for a violation of the State Civil Rights Act (LAWRENCE J. KORB vs. RAYTHEON CORPORATION. (n.d.). Korb had been with the United States Department of Defense for about four years, were he served as assistant secretary of defense for manpower, installations, and logistics. Korb later left the government and joined Raytheon Corporation as vice president in charge. Korb spoke at the company’s annual alternative defense budget conference, in which he said some things that many people in the Department of Defense did not like nor approve of (LAWRENCE J. KORB vs. RAYTHEON CORPORATION. (n.d.). After being told his job was in jeopardy, due to his recent sayings, he wrote a letter to the editor of the...
Words: 1046 - Pages: 5
...CASE DEVELOPMENT Weaknesses in traditional performance evaluation methods - An Ethical Challenge GROUP 8 11BM60041- Partha Pratim 11BM60048- Sumitpal Singh 11BM60058- Shilpa Taneja 11BM60110- Rana Vishal Singh Weaknesses in traditional performance evaluation methods - An Ethical Challenge Abstract/Situation Description The standard performance appraisal does not adequately address employer concerns in maintaining ethical and legal compliance. Globalization and increasingly stringent antidiscrimination legislation necessitates the need for an effective performance appraisal system. “(Some) 90 percent of performance appraisal processes are inadequate.” – Salary.com survey As demonstrated in the important California Supreme Court case of Guz vs. Bechtel National Inc., a laid off employee with lengthy service may offer in evidence a poor performance evaluation record against an employer in an attempt to prove age bias. Although Guz was unsuccessful with the age bias claim, the court opined that plaintiffs with long service may prevail if there is sufficient evidence that the employer’s proffered reasons for layoffs are pretextual. The implied warning by the court to employers is that pretextual use of performance evaluations may paradoxically become evidence against them to prove illegal retaliation or discriminatory intent. In another case, Robert Shaner was a computer programmer in Synthes. In August of 1992, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). However, he...
Words: 1114 - Pages: 5
...1) Official Citations Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group 84 Cal. App. 4th 32 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627](2000) Starzinski v. Capital Public Radio 88 Cal. App. 4th 33 [105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 525](2001) 2. Case Briefs Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group Facts Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi, who is an anesthesiologist, was terminated under an oral contract stating for a specified term. This was caused by a dispute over the plaintiff and a ophthalmologist on how the proceeding should be on the specific surgery that happened that happened in the operating room which lead to an bigger argument. The ophthalmologist’s brother was the head of the anesthesia group. Then Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group terminated Khajai’s employment. The court ruled that Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group has breached its oral employment and awarded him. Issues 1. Standard of Review - Khajavi first appeals from the trial court's ruling that granted Feather River a nonsuit as to his fourth cause of action. As noted earlier, Khajavi's fourth cause of action alleged that defendants wrongly terminated him in violation of section 2056 for advocating medically appropriate health care.[7] 2. Feather River’s Motion for Nonsuit as to the Fourth Cause of Action Rules 1. Standard of Review- "A defendant is entitled to a nonsuit if the trial court determines that, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by plaintiff is insufficient to permit...
Words: 1146 - Pages: 5
...According to an article by Charles Muhl titled “The Employment at Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions”, the mentioned doctrine is a United States Labor Law that allows employees to be fired or terminated from their position at their place of employment by their superiors without warning and for any reason that supplies just cause. (2001) It is also known as at-will employment, generally describing employment that can be granted and taken away without required reasoning and without notice. According to the Supreme Court of California: “An employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason - the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment - the mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.” (2000) Each of the eight scenario’s listed below possess some relation to the employment-at-will doctrine. As the hypothetical COO of the company experiencing these issues with their employee’s, I am required to determine within each scenario whether or not the employee can be legally fired, what type of action should be taken if any, and my standpoints on a possible whistleblower policy within the company. The first scenario involves John, who posted a rant...
Words: 1228 - Pages: 5
