Legal Encounter 1
Pat has been recruited in a senior position within the organization and therefore, although the entire contract hasnt been seen, it is fair to assume that the provisions would be consistent with that of a relatively senior executive. Essentially, the employment relationship is a contractual relationship between the employer and the employee and therefore it is governed by the contents of that contract. Having said that, there are also statutory restrictions that are placed on the way in which employers can act towards employees.
Any employee who does not have a contract in Vermont would be deemed an at will employee, meaning that the employer can fire Pat whenever they choose. Despite this, Pat had an employment contract and therefore he has increased protection based on this fact. There are certain other protections that are in place for Pat, stating that he cannot be discriminated against, for example, he cannot be fired due to issues of race or sex. This does not seem to have been the case here.
He cannot be fired either for asserting some sort of legal right. For example, he could not be fired for reporting health and safety issues. In this case, it is suspected that Pat was fired for asserting his opinion at a local school board. This is not however a protected right and is therefore unlikely to provide Pat with an action.
The most likely cause of action is therefore going to be the clause in the employment contract stating that where performance falls short then there is an agreed management plan in place. This has not been followed and therefore Pat could claim breach of contract and damages pursuant to this. As Pat had relocated and acted in reliance of the role to his detriment he would be able to make a claim against his employer to reimburse him and to put him back in the financial position he would have been if the breach had not occurred.
Legal Encounter 2
There are several potential issues here including the approach being taken by Sam and also the request made by Paula to transfer departments. The employer has a liability (based on the Occupational Safety and Health Act) to ensure that Paula is not exposed to hazardous substances and therefore, pending her change of department, the company is under a federal law duty to ensure that the appropriate checks are undertaken. This is true whether or not Paula is pregnant, but should naturally be taken into account when undertaking this check.
All employers in the Vermont region are governed by the Fair Employment
Practices Act, that prevents acts of discrimination and harassment against any employee. Although the activity has primarily taken place from Sam, he is a senior member of the staff and there is likely to be seen some degree of fault placed on the company for failing to manage the situation accordingly. Some of these provisions only apply to companies with more than 20 employees, but this is amply covered in this case.
No individual can be discriminated against by virtue of their pregnancy, therefore a blanket refusal to transfer Paula to another department could be seen as being potentially discriminatory.
Paula has been harassed by Sam and the company has a duty to ensure that she does not suffer harassment from another member of staff. Failing to manage the position with Sam could potentially render the employer liable to an action from Paula, should she decide to leave her employment as a result. They could potentially also face a claim based on discrimination, for failing to consider a department change due to the fact that she is pregnant.
Legal Encounter 3
This situation is once again governed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and is dealt with by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Each employee has a right to raise health and safety issues with their employer if they feel there is a dangerous situation in the workplace. If the employer fails to deal with this matter then the employee is fully entitled to report the matter to the Occupation Safety and Health Administration. The administration is part of the Vermont Labor Department and deals with enforcing the Act across all employers (including New Corp).
No employee can be discriminated against for filing a complaint with the administration and New Corp needs to ensure that Paul is not treated less favorably as a result of his complaint. He is entitled to refuse to work in the area until the matter is resolved.
Certain specific criteria need to be looked at by the company. For example, the company would need to instigate noise monitoring if it finds itself in a position where an employee is exposed for 8 hours on average to a noise in excess of 85 decibels. The company will need to produce the necessary records to show that it is complying with this requirement, or if it does not need to monitor, it will also need to evidence this fact. Safety records need to be maintained and these should be checked to be seen if they are available and up to date, as it is likely that the administration will undertake an investigation following the complaint made by Paul. Paul should not be forced to work in the offending area and should not be treated unfavorably for making the complaint (which in any event is anonymous).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment