Pat has an opportunity to apply to the court and win the case in this situation. According to the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan which has been created and signed up before the employment, Pat has to be informed about the problems he has and pointed to the specific actions which should be taken to remove dissatisfactory effect. Pat was only informed that he is going to be discharged within 30 days. It is illegal. Contract is a document which must be followed by all parties. As the employee was not informed about the problems caused by his responsibilities, he can refer to this Notice. NewCorp will have to give an employee another chance to correct the problem and work appropriately.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Furthermore, it is possible to conclude that the employer has personal dissatisfaction with Pat. Working abilities were not taken into consideration when the decision to discharge Pat was taken. According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, each person has a right to be treated equally. Pat has an opportunity to refer to this amendment if he proves that he is discharged due to the personal opinion, not because of professional characteristics.
The US Constitution offers protection from employment discrimination. Still, Pat should pay more attention to the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan as his rights for a second chance were violated. Pat should demand for placing on a corrective action plan and in case the job will still be done in a poor quality, the termination of the contract may be possible.
This problem may be considered under the case law.
The liability of NewCorp is too low this situation, as according to the decision made in the Burlington Industries, INC. v. Ellerth case (1998), an employer is not responsible for the actions taken by the supervisor in the relation to the personal attitude to the employees. Thus, the problem should be solved between Paula and Sam.
Sam has an opportunity to apply to the court with the request to leave Paula at the present position because of her hypothetical pregnancy. According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a person cannot be employed to the position which may cause problems to her fetus and her. Such arguments may be convincing. But, still, Sam has little rights in this situation as his treatment of Paula causes many problems to her and she considers those as sexual harassment. Having been refused, Sam wants to make Paula do what he desires by means of constant sexual encroachment at the work place.
Paula has more rights in this case and has more opportunities for legal justice in this situation. Using the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) law case and its decision, Paula may state that “hostile environment” she has to exist in is a result of the sexual harassment she has experienced as a result of refusal to date with Sam. This situation may be considered as a form of sexual discrimination from Sam’s side. If to bring this problem under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paula may win the case and shift to the position she wants. Sam is unable to block the transfer. Moreover, Paula may also apply for Sam’s criminal responsibility.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Workplace Safety & Health
An employer is responsible for the safety of his/her employees. Thus, NewCorp is unable to make Paul work in dangerous for his health conditions. An employer should be ruled by the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 where it is stated that an employer is responsible for elimination of different hazards which may cause serious injuries or even death. The size of the employer’s businss is not taken into account. An employer should not only provide a workplace free from those hazards but he/she also should comply with standards and regulations.
Regardless the current situation, an employee has been injured at the work place du to the small size of the space he was working at. NewCorp should accept the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for examination of the conditions of the work and in case it states that the place is too confining and, therefore, dangerous, the company should change the working conditions for Paul at least for the period when he has to work with the machine of too big size. Referencing to the claustrophobic disease which has been developed because of working in such conditions, Paul may consider it as an occupational disease and with the necessary evidence demand on a compensation program.
NewCorp should also pay Paul compensation under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Program for the period when Paul was disabled to work due to the injury at the workplace. These actions may prevent Paul from suing NewCorp for irresponsible attitude to employees’ health and safety. NewCorp is unable to avoid its responsibility as employees are protected under different legal acts.
Burlington Industries, INC. v. Ellerth. (1998). 524 U.S. 742.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. (1986). 477 U.S. 57.