Scenario 1:

Most employee handbooks come with rules and regulations and terms of contract of the employment that any reasonable person can qualify as an expressed and implied contract. This is so because procedures, policies, and promises are present in an employee personnel manual. For instance, once an employee receives a handbook from the employer, the interpretation of this action constitutes contract. Therefore, Grey has a case if he chooses to sue NewCorp for a breach of implies employment contract expressed in the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance and Corrective Action Plan Manual.

Employment laws of the land make it illegal to terminate an employee in retaliation for an employee’s freedom speech, freedom of religion or freedom of privacy. So, if part of the reasons Mr. Grey’s job is receiving termination is for his freedom of speech at the school meeting that will be unconstitutional. The right of an employee not to be demoted, retaliated against, or fired for engaging in such legally permitted activities depends on laws of the particular states in which he or she live (Sack, 1998). The United States Supreme Court ruling states that an employee cannot be terminated in retaliation for the exercise of free speech. If Vermont is one of the state that have enacted laws governing citizen’s freedom of actions occurring outside employment sites, Mr. Grey can sue Newcorp for wrongful termination if the school meeting speech was the reason for his termination. NewCorp to avoid a wrongful termination lawsuit should work out their differences amicably with Mr. Grey through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as arbitration, negotiator or mediator. This method is be less expensive and not time consuming (Cheeseman, 2010).

NewCorp should endeavor to establish a no ambiguous performance review contract and train their managers regarding on these rules to avoid engaging the company in the risk of wrongful termination lawsuit in the future.

Scenario 2:

The characters exhibited by Sam toward Paula leave Newcorp with the violability of a sexual harassment lawsuit. The acts of letting an employee know through actions or words that his or her employment, promotion, training or benefits depends on sexual favors constitute a quid pr quo. For Sam’s wrongful acts of invitations, language, and pictures, all of sexual suggestions that were conducted at the workplace and becoming so persistent created a hostile working environment for Paula, which Newcorp is liable for because Sam is their employee (Cheeseman, 2010).

In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment was actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The US Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania state police v. Suders in 2004 made it unproblematic for plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit of sexual harassment against their employers by ruling that plaintiffs do not have to prove that abusive conduct caused any injury in the affected person's emotional well-being. Paula to win her case just has to prove that a reasonable person would have found Sam’s conducts to be offensive.

Paula’s transfer blocking by Sam an employee of Newcorp with the excuse of pregnancy issues leaves Newcorp to be liable of violating the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). This act enacted in 1978 as an amendment to title V11. This amendment forbids employment discrimination because of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition (Cheeseman, 2010).The US Supreme Court in 1991 rule that employers cannot ban women from particular hazardous jobs based on the argument that women are fertile and may get pregnant, or that the job cause defects in the fetuses of female workers in the case of international union v. Johnson. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act leaves the choice to women when concerns comes to taking a hazardous job, so as to Paula case, NewCorp under the law does not have the authority to determine for Paula if a department is hazardous or not; it should be her choice or the company will face a sex discrimination lawsuit.

Scenario 3:

Employees’ safety concerns getting out of hands, enabled the Congress to enact occupational safety and health act in 1970; with the occupational safety and health administration (OSHA) enforcing its laws. This law mandates employers to provide a safe and healthful working environment (Chessmen, 21010).

Employee’s complaints against his or her employers to the occupational safety and health administration for failure of providing safe working environment cannot led to a retaliatory punishment from the employers or the company will be breaking the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, that was enacted to protect individuals who report wrongful conducts. If Paul gets fired, discriminate or demote by NewCorp for reporting the company to OSHA, Paul will have the right to file a case against NewCorp with the labor department that might lead to federal court.

The best interest of NewCorp is to provide its workforce with a safe and healthy working environment; if it happens that John gets injured while working in an unsafe workplace or have any work- related injuries that will entitle him to collect compensation from NewCorp. Paul’s claustrophobia will also qualify as an on- the- job injury if Paul can prove that the working condition at NewCorp cause the emotional sickness. NewCorp course of action in dispersing in the conflict between the company and Paul should be using an ADR method to avoid prolonged and expensive legal battle and also hire an OSHA expert to conduct an extensive review of NewCorp working environment and advice on areas that need correction to avoid the risk of breaking the occupational safety and health act in the future.

References

Cheeseman, Henry. (2010). Business Law. Legal Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues. (7th ed.) Prentice Hall.

Sack, S. (1998). The working woman's legal survival guide. Retrieved from http://public.findlaw.com/bookshelf-working-woman