Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment Tester Pester
LAW/531
November 7, 2010
Lame Duck

Abstract
This paper analyzes the legal principles and remedies behind the three scenarios described in the simulation.

Legal Risk and Opportunity in Employment
Legal Encounter One
NewCorp hired Pat Grey as a property manager. NewCorp fired Pat after three months. Pat thinks it is not related to performance but other outside issues. NewCorp maintains that it is not working out with Pat, so he is let go.
Legal Issues 1. Doctrine of promissory estoppels. 2. At-will Employment.
Vermont is an “at will state.” According to the definition of “at will” on the Department Of Labor, Vermont, (n.d) website, An employer may terminate an employee for any reason as long as it is not one of the protect classes e.g.: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or mental, or physical disability. NewCorp has not terminated Pat for any of these reasons. Retaliation or discrimination against employees or applicants who have alleged employment discrimination is unlawful (Cheeseman, 2010). Pat has not made any employment discriminations complaints. Pat has also acknowledged signing a statement of employment at-will so he should be aware that he can be let go anytime for no reason. Pat can still establish a claim for wrongful termination under promissory estoppels. He will have to prove the termination breached a specific promise made by NewCorp
(Cheeseman, 2010). According to NewCorp’s employment offer there was no promise of anything other than employment “at will” to Pat. I do not find breach of promise. Pats belief that his views at the local school board meeting had some influence in the decision is merely an assumption. The decision to terminate him was not based on his outside views.
Legal Encounter Two
Supervisor of Electrical Manufacturing Sam was in a relationship with one of his employees Paula. She ended the relationship and tried to transfer to another department. Sam has blocked the transfer. Paula maintains that it is illegal discrimination based on sex.
Legal Issues 1. Sexual harassment 2. Pregnancy Discrimination 3. Workplace negligence.
This is a clear case of sexual harassment. Sam has continued to exhibit unwelcome behavior, even after Paula told him to stop. According to Cheeseman (2010), The U.S. Supreme Court has held that sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment violates Title VII. Conduct such as making lewd remarks, touching, intimidation, posting of indecent materials, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment. Sam’s conduct is clearly creating a hostile environment. NewCorp will be liable if this goes to court. I recommend that HR look into taking disciplinary action against Sam.
This scenario also exposes NewCorp to Pregnancy discrimination. Pregnant ladies cannot work in the wire coating department because it could harm the early state fetus. According to cheesemann (2010) The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment to Title VII. This amendment forbids employment discrimination because of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” NewCorp will have to address this scenario. NewCorp needs to do additional research to identify ways to prevent the chemicals from affecting pregnant women.
The third legal issue is workplace negligence. Sam has identified the evidence that can lead to medical problems in pregnancy. NewCorp needs handle this situation immediately. This situation is a potential lawsuit, if pregnant women are allowed to work there without fixing the chemical issue. NewCorp needs to have the research department analyze the chemicals in use or will have to change the chemicals or provide protective clothing for women, which will prevent the effect of the chemicals.
Legal Encounter Three
Paul, the senior maintenance technician, has expressed concerns about the safety of the work area, around the pulp shredder. He says it is too confining and dangerous. One other employee has already met with an accident. Paul has threatened to sue
Legal issues 1. OSHA regulation 2. Workers Compensation
Paul contents that the pulp shredder is too dangerous and the space is too confining. Our safety manager has reviewed the area and mentioned that it is safe. One worker has already sustained injuries. This will expose NewCorp to workers compensation. According to the Vermont Department of Labor Website the “Workers' Compensation System was established by the Vermont Legislature in 1915 to compensate and protect employees who suffer personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment and to protect employers by limiting their exposure from lawsuits arising out of such injuries.” Workers Comp is a "no-fault" insurance program that provides medical and disability benefits for work-related injuries and illnesses. According to Cheeseman (2010), an accident that occurs when an employee is actively working is clearly within the scope of this rule. By providing workers compensation NewCorp can limit liability. According to Cheeseman (2010) Workers’ compensation is an exclusive remedy. Thus workers cannot both receive workers’ compensation and sue their employers in court for damages. One exception to this rule is if an employer intentionally injures a worker, the worker can collect workers’ compensation benefits and sue the employer. NewCorp did not intentionally injure the employee, so NewCorp will have legal protection. The second legal regulation is the OSHA regulation. According to Cheeseman (2010) In 1970, Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act to promote safety in the workplace. Virtually all private employers are within the scope of the act. NewCorp will have to make sure that the pulp shredder does not constitute occupational hazard. It is my recommendation that NewCorp request for an OSHA inspection of the pulp shredder area. If they find any violations then NewCorp can correct it. If there are no violations then NewCorp can be sure that Paul’s claims are his own imagination.

Reference
Cheeseman, H. (2010). Business law: legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Department Of Labor, Vermont. (n.d). Workers. Retrieved from http://www.labor.vermont.gov/Workers/Employed/CanmyEmployerdoThat/tabid/253/Default.aspx
Joseph, S. (2008). LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF EMPLOYER DISCHARGE PROCEDURES. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(1), 96-99. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.