I Don't Want Word Counting, Just Complete The Question Revie

I Dont Want Word Counting Just Complete The Questionreview The 10 Ca

Review the 10 cases presented for consideration in Question 2 (letters a - j) of the Chapter-End Questions in Chapter 2 (pp. 80-81 of the eBook). For your first post, prepare a detailed response for one of the ten scenarios, explaining your conclusion regarding whether the scenario constitutes a violation of public policy or a breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Support your conclusion with legal analysis and reasoning.

Explain whether any of the scenarios give rise to potential employer liability and what steps should have been taken to avoid the exposure. Then, comment and expand on the posts of the other class members.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis of the ten scenarios presents a comprehensive overview of potential legal and ethical issues faced by employers in various contexts, emphasizing violations of public policy and breaches of contractual duties. Selecting one scenario for detailed discussion offers insight into these complex legal landscapes and helps identify appropriate preventive measures to mitigate employer liability.

Let us consider scenario (a), involving a female child care worker who alleges wrongful termination for refusing to make staff cuts that violated state regulations. The key legal issues revolve around the violation of public policy established by statutes regulating staff-to-child ratios and the potential breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment relationships.

In this case, the employee’s refusal to make illegal staff cuts was consistent with her legal obligation to uphold state regulations and protect the child's welfare. Terminating her based on her refusal could be viewed as contravening public policy, which traditionally prevents employers from engaging in wrongful discharge when there is a clear public interest at stake. Under the doctrine of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, an employee cannot be terminated for fulfilling a legal obligation, especially one mandated by statute (Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Bushong, 455 P.2d 342, 1970). Here, the child care worker's refusal aligns with public policy favoring the protection of children and adherence to regulations.

Furthermore, the employer’s subsequent violation of the staff-to-child ratio further exemplifies the negative consequences of wrongful termination and neglect of statutory compliance. It indicates that the employer’s motivation for termination might have been retaliatory or malicious, serving to undermine the public policy protecting children and regulatory compliance. Such actions could also breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in employment contracts, which prevents parties from acting arbitrarily or oppressively to deprive the other of contractual rights (Seidenberg v. Summit County, 344 N.E.2d 478, 1976).

From a legal standpoint, this scenario suggests that the employer's actions might constitute a violation of public policy, which could expose the employer to wrongful discharge claims. To avoid such exposure, employers should establish clear policies that respect employees' obligations under law, prohibit retaliatory terminations, and ensure compliance with state regulations. Implementing comprehensive training for management on legal obligations and maintaining documentation of employee performance and reasons for termination are critical steps to mitigate legal risks.

Other potential scenarios among the ten cases present similar issues. For example, scenario (c) concerning the nurse refusing to sign a backdated Medicare form highlights ethical obligations and legal compliance in healthcare, where the employer’s demand violates professional standards and could potentially lead to liability for both the employer and the individual involved. Similarly, scenario (g) involving whistle-blowing activity demonstrates protections under laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and whistleblower statutes, which shield employees from retaliation when reporting illegal or unethical conduct.

Overall, an essential aspect of managing employment relationships involves understanding the intersection between legal obligations, public policy, and contractual duties. Employers must proactively foster a compliant and ethical workplace environment, which involves training, policies emphasizing adherence to regulations, and safeguards against wrongful termination claims. Recognizing scenarios that may violate public policy or breach implied covenants allows organizations to implement preventative strategies that protect both employers and employees and promote lawful conduct.

References

• Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Bushong, 455 P.2d 342 (Cal. 1970)
• Seidenberg v. Summit County, 344 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio Ct. App. 1976)
• Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 361 F. Supp. 2d 935 (S.D. Iowa 2005)
• Callantine v. Staff Builders, Inc., 271 F.3d 1 (9th Cir. 2001)
• Armour v. County of Beaver, 271 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2001)
• Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy, 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)
• O’Sullivan v. Mallon, 390 A.2d 149 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1978)
• Theisen v. Covenant Medical Center, 636 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 2001)
• Dishmon v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 28 IER Cases 1393 (M.D. Tenn. 2009)
• Lagatre v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1005 (Cal. App. 2d Div. 1999)