In this instance, Dohn Milton (the plaintiff) was hired by IIT Research Institute (defendant) to discover the potentials of the contract with the federal government. Then, his duties expanded, and he was promoted to vice president of IITRI’s Advanced Technology Group (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). In turn, the plaintiff spotted that the defendant violates the laws by “abusing its tax-exempt by failing to report…taxable income” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 47). Nonetheless, the plaintiff was diminished from the post after reporting the financial violations. The plaintiff filled the report on tort, but, in the end, the outcomes were reversed for plaintiff.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
The primary issue lays in the inability of the employees to report the fraud due to the lack of their duties. Furthermore, another aspect is the nature of the law that the employees can be fired without any explanations. Nonetheless, the employees can argue this decision of the employer due to the “wrongful discharge” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 47). In this instance, it remains evident that it is hard to prove the wrongful discharge. It could be said that the primary issues lay in the definition of the wrongful discharge, as it is essential to find the balance between the rights of employees and employers without causing significant damage to the business law practices.
Speaking of the rules of the law, one of the aspects, which has been highly discussed is the legal rules that the employees can be “fired with or without cause” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 47). However, in this instance, the court of Maryland makes narrow exemptions, which imply 1) “where the employee has been fired for refusing violate the law” and 2) “where an employee has been terminated for exercising a specific legal right or duty” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p. 48). These principles were utilized while finding the solution to the Milton’s (plaintiff’s) case.
In the end, the claim of the plaintiff was diminished. Nevertheless, the logic of this decision complies with the primary principles of the law of the Maryland state. The plaintiff made no claim about the refusal of the law violation. In turn, it remains evident that the ability to comply with the second matter are vague due to the various implementation in different cases such as Thompson v. Memorial Hospital and Bleich v. Florence Crittenden Services. Despite providing arguments of the precedent cases, the actions of the plaintiff were not considered as corresponding with any principles of the laws of Maryland. Nonetheless, the primary reason for the plaintiff’s case dismissal is the protection of the position of the employers from the legal perception, as, otherwise, the employees will have a high power of complaint, and a vast variety of the reports will be presented.
Speaking of my opinion and the future applications of the case, it could be said that the primary reason for the plaintiff’s refusal is the understanding that this decision will start the flow of the lawsuits against the employers, which cannot be dismissed. Nonetheless, maintaining the relationship between employees and employers on the right level is essential due to the necessity of the understanding of belonging to the different levels of subordinations (Holtzhausen & Fourie, 2009). In the end, it has a beneficial influence on the business law development.
Anderson, M. (2013). Emails (and other pure information) are not property. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 8(5), 357-358.
Eggertson, L. (2013). Quality control. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 185(10), 467.
as little as 3 hours
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and ethics in the business environment. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Holtzhausen, L., & Fourie, L. (2009). Employees’ perceptions of company values and objectives and employer-employee relationships: Theoretical model. Corporate Communications, 14(3), 333-344.
Legal information institute: First Amendment. (2014). Web.
Legal information institute: Products liability. (2014). Web.
Spector, M. (2009). GM broadens product-liability pact. The Wall Street Journal. Eastern Edition, p. B2.