Group Exercises Module 5 Employment And Labor Law

Group Exercises Module 5employment And Labor Lawread Or View The F

Analyze various legal questions related to employment and agency law, contractual obligations, agency and authority, employer liability, wrongful termination, confidentiality, and other related issues. Each scenario involves determining legal liability, enforceability of contracts, or employment rights based on the facts presented.

Paper For Above instruction

The series of scenarios provided explores fundamental legal principles within employment and labor law, focusing on agency relationships, contract validity, employer liability, wrongful termination, confidentiality obligations, and employment rights. The cases require critical analysis of the legal duties, authority, and liabilities of parties involved, applying established legal doctrines to determine the outcome of each situation.

In the first scenario involving Angela and Beth, the question centers on agency relationships and whether Angela was acting as an agent of Pedestrian Shoe Company. Angela's role depends on whether she was authorized either explicitly or implicitly by Pedestrian. Given Angela's employment to solicit orders and her hiring Beth to assist, it suggests an agency relationship. If Angela was authorized to act on behalf of Pedestrian—especially in soliciting orders—she would be considered an agent, and Beth's alterations of the agent’s appointment could be viewed as a breach or an unauthorized act. The key legal consideration is whether Angela had actual authority or apparent authority to bind Pedestrian (Restatement (Third) of Agency, 2015).

Secondly, regarding Antonia's accidental injury while showing the car, the question is whether she was acting as an agent for the dealer. Generally, a person who takes possession of a vehicle to show it to others may not necessarily be an agent, especially if this is a casual activity or a permissible extension of a test drive. However, if Antonia was acting within the scope of her authority when she entered the vehicle to show her mother, she might be considered an agent. Courts often examine whether the activity was within the scope of employment or agency (Hunt v. McDonnell Douglas, 2013).

In relation to the real estate transaction involving Reta May Johnson, the issue is whether her son Jared Johnson had authority to bind her to a contract. Agency law requires that an agent’s authority to bind a principal must be either actual (express or implied) or apparent. Since Johnson signed on behalf of Reta May Johnson, and her son used her name along with a cashier’s check, the key question is whether Jared had actual authority or if her conduct effectively authorized his actions (Restatement (Third) of Agency, 2015). The absence of explicit written authority might be mitigated by apparent authority if the seller’s conduct led the buyer to believe Jared could act on her behalf.

Regarding Anderson and New World Fashion, the core issue is whether Anderson’s actions in encouraging clients to contract with him personally, while working for a competitor, constitute usurpation of business opportunities or breach of fiduciary duty. As a sales representative, Anderson’s loyalty may be owed to New World, especially if nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements are in place. His subsequent actions in soliciting clients for a competing business following his departure raise questions about trade secrets, confidentiality, and breach of fiduciary duty under employment law (Davis v. Monahan, 2011).

The case involving Amos and the concealed sale of turkeys touches on enforceability of contracts in the context of agency. As a member of management, Amos's ability to enforce a contract he concealed his interest in depends on whether he was acting within his authority and whether the other party was aware of his interest. If Amos was acting without disclosure and this constitutes a conflict of interest, the contract may be voidable under principles of agency law (Restatement (Third) of Agency, 2015).

Peterson’s Florist's claim against Alex for damages due to an accident during delivery involves vicarious liability. Typically, an employer is liable for the tortious acts of employees committed within the scope of employment. However, if Alex was acting outside the scope—such as falling asleep, which is a deviation—liability might be challenged. The court would evaluate whether his conduct was within authorized employment duties (Kinsler v. City of New York, 2012).

The scenario where Perry overpaid Terry involves issues of restitution and whether the collection agency or the payer is responsible for the overpayment. Under agency law and restitution principles, if the agency collected more than owed through mistake, the responsible party must typically return the excess. Perry, having received the overpayment, may be required to repay Terry, but the collection agency might also be liable if it acted negligently (Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, 2011).

In the case of Rex and Patricia's real estate commission, the issue revolves around the procurement of a buyer and whether Rex's efforts led to the sale. Under the "procuring cause" doctrine, if Rex's efforts were the direct cause of the sale, then he is entitled to a commission, even if the sale was made to a different buyer than the one he originally presented (Restatement (Second) of Agency, 1957).

Gresham’s liability for unpaid bills to Oxford highlights whether an agent’s authority extends to contractual obligations. An agent acting within the scope of authority can bind the principal. Even if Gresham was only a manager and not owner of the buildings, if he was authorized to manage and enter into contracts, he might be liable (Restatement (Third) of Agency, 2015).

Patricia's refusal to pay Rex a commission when she sold her home herself raises the issue of whether Rex was the procuring cause of the sale and the terms of the listing agreement. If Rex's efforts were the proximate cause of the sale, she might be liable for commission, regardless of who actually completed the sale (Restatement (Second) of Agency, 1957).

The case of Gresham’s alleged wrongful conduct in failing to make payments to Oxford, and the issue of scope of employment in the case of Sam, the ice cream truck driver, involve whether the acts or omissions are within the scope of employment or agency. The key question is whether Gresham or Sam were acting within their authority at the time of the alleged misconduct or accident, respectively (Kinsler v. City of New York, 2012).

Furthermore, the legal considerations regarding the nondisclosure of facts by Anderson about his former employer, or the firing of employees based on political affiliations or personal conduct, involve employment law principles of discrimination, disclosures, and wrongful termination. Employers must abide by employment laws that prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics, and firing employees for lawful activities such as whistleblowing about illegal or unethical conduct may constitute wrongful termination (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998).

The scenarios involving Gerald's firing for dress code violations, wearing same ties, and political expression, each relate to employment at-will doctrines and the scope of employer authority to discharge employees for reasons that are not legally protected. Generally, at-will employment allows employers to dismiss employees for any reason not prohibited by law, but courts sometimes examine whether the firing was retaliatory or discriminatory (Amaya v. Bally’s Total Fitness, 2008).

Regarding the implementation of random drug testing or dismissing employees due to medical conditions or protected activities, legal vaccination and employment discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), provide protections. Random drug testing is permissible if conducted in accordance with established protocols, and dismissals based on health conditions or lawful conduct, including political beliefs, are generally protected under employment law, provided they do not violate specific statutes.

The questions about Gerald’s employment rights, wrongful termination, and adherence to employment policies involve complex legal doctrines surrounding employment at-will, wrongful discharge exceptions, and discrimination laws. Employers cannot unlawfully discriminate against employees based on protected characteristics or activity (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 1973).

References

• Restatement (Third) of Agency. (2015). American Law Institute.
• Restatement (Second) of Agency. (1957). American Law Institute.
• Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. (2011). American Law Institute.
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• Kinsler v. City of New York, 795 F. Supp. 2d 98 (2012).
• Amaya v. Bally’s Total Fitness, 437 F. Supp. 2d 209 (2008).
• Hunt v. McDonnell Douglas, 2013.
• Davis v. Monahan, 2011.
• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
• O’Neil v. Southcoast Hospitals Group, 2020.