Part A. Objective Style Items
Part B. Short Essay
The case of Peter tends to offer no legal recourse given that the employment state provided is full employment-at-will. In this regard, the employer is entitled to discharge any employee based on any reason. In the case of Peter, the reason for dismissal is caused by an apparent redundancy in the organization. Mainly, the job description that he possesses is to help in the creation of the proposal to acquire a government contract. Thus the need of the services of Peter ended the moment the proposal was submitted and when the company failed to acquire the government contract.
However, if Peter is adamant to take legal action against the apparent “wrongful termination” he encountered, then he could take claims against the company of violation of certain employment laws. Given the limited information in the case, it would be advisable to ask Peter if he felt in any way discriminated in his six months of employment. It was indicated that the owner of the company was a minority. If he cited certain instances that could tantamount to discrimination based on race, then he could make a claim against the company in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In the same regard, another vital information that should be maintained in the case of Peter is whether the company has a tangible proof of its employment-at-will policy. More specifically, it would be imperative to know if the company has a handbook indicating that the employees are indeed within an employment-at-will policy. Without such proof in writing, then Peter would have a strong case against the company by maintaining that he was terminated without just cause.
Part C. Case Analysis
Legally, the company will not be facing any sexual harassment suit as the case intimated that the woman involved, Sally, have no knowledge of the matter. In the same regard, the information provided also indicated that there is no actual proof that the inflatable naked female doll points to a specific person. Nonetheless, this does not absolve the tenants of the Smith cabin of their behavior. This means that even without the complaint from a particular employee, the acts held by Smith and his cohorts though done in jest are still inappropriate. The company must deem themselves lucky that they are not facing any legal actions.
To this end, they have to take actions that would control the damage done by Smith. It would be advisable for the VP to initiate a review of the anti-harassment policies of the organization, assuming that one exists of course. This could be seen normally in handbooks. Basically, these policies cover discrimination base on race, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. The company should consult existing employment laws like the ADA, ADEA, EPA, and Title VII. It would also be advisable to reinforce the policy by indicating that the company will take action against those who violate these and protect those who complain of harassment.
Furthermore, the VP should make sure that the stunt that Smith and company should not recur. He must clarify with the rest of the organization that such actions are unwelcome. Essentially, without intimating the infantile nature of the deed of Smith, it also serves as bait for future legal actions against the company. It is in this context that the VP should have a meeting with the managers and supervisors to remind them of their duties and responsibilities. More importantly, the VP should encourage employees to file complaints of discrimination to the company. This is to allow the VP to initiate objective investigations, exhaust all administrative instruments and essentially resolve it internally.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment