The following questions need to be answered to proceed with Greene’s defense regarding Lawson’s claim of wrongful termination. Greene must provide all internal documentation that they were indeed downsizing in addition to:
• What other employees were let go?
• What notice were the other employees given when they were informed that their positions were no longer required?
• Did the other employees receive severance packages?
• Did Greene’s document Lawson’s habitual tardiness and provide written corrective action instructions to her?
• Were there any other employees who knew about Lawson’s pregnancy?
Additionally, the non-disclosure signed by Lawson not to divulge the Ever-Gold trade secret needs to be evaluated that it is signed by all company
…show more content…
However, Lawson has claimed that her dismissal was due to her pregnancy. As a pregnant woman, Lawson is protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and addendum to Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 overseen by the EEOC. The EEOC Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 § 1604.10 outlines explicitly that discrimination such as wrongful termination for pregnancy is “a prima facie violation of Title VII if the company cannot prove the firing occurred due to business necessity.” However, Greene’s can substantiate the termination of Lawson as it was a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive” by providing information of other non-essential staff that were also let go at the time of Lawson’s dismissal. Additionally, Lawson must “provide enough evidence to make a prima facie case of discrimination to sway a judge or jury to conclude that she was terminated because of her pregnancy under Title VII” (NOLO, n.d.). Furthermore, as the termination is not considered “a wrongful discharge as New Hampshire is an employment-at-will state Lawson will not be able to defend her claim of unlawful discriminatory practices” by utilizing New Hampshire’s Trade and Commerce Title XXXI Chapter 354-A:7. The following two law cases support this reasoning as they both involve pregnant individuals who were let go after management’s decision to …show more content…
During our initial assessment, we looked at the facts that still needed to be determined and have concluded that Lawson was one of many employees who was fired within that week. We have also ascertained that Lawson’s habitual lateness was not always documented, nor did she receive any warnings in writing only verbal ones. Therefore, Greene’s needs to implement “proactive measures to avoid a similar situation in the future, such as an employee handbook that outlines the rules, consequences if the rules are broken and consistent regular documentation in writing for infractions” (Nagele-Piazza, 2017). Written documentation of an employee’s exit interview that presents the employee with a copy of any legal documents they agreed to at the beginning of their employment should also be completed, so the departing staff member understands the ramifications if they choose to share confidential company information. Lastly, providing outgoing staff with assistance in finding future employment will maintain relationships and be looked upon favorably by all associated with this unfortunate decision to downsize
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
The court case Cleveland Board of Education V. LaFleur challenged the maternity policy regarding teachers having to go on unpaid leave involuntarily for 4-5 months due to their pregnancy. Jo Carol LaFleur and Ana Elizabeth Nelson whom were both teachers working under the Cleveland Board of Education when these issues occurred that lead to their decision of filing a suit against the board. They mainly hoped to be able to still continue their teaching well after the 5 month mark that the policy required them to leave. Failure to comply with these rules would have lead to their dismissal of their position or re-employment is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland Board of Education policy violated and went against the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This case was very significant in which it preserved the rights of teachers, especially women.
The names and genders of all the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated along with Jennifer Lawson due to the downsizing.
His complaint alleged that his termination was unconstitutional because he was not given an opportunity to respond to the charges against him before his removal. As a result he was deprived of liberty and property (steady employment) without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ruled that his due process rights were not violated. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a consolidated appeal: Loudermill’s case together with another similar case (Cleveland Board of Education v Donnelly). The court reversed, in part, the previous decision and stated that the Board of Education had, in fact, violated Loudermill’s due process rights by removing his property right (to employment) before giving him a chance to respond to the charges against him. 3. Main Issue: Can a state remove a civil service employee’s property rights to employment before giving that employee an opportunity to respond to the charges which are the cause for the termination? 4. Court Deciding: United States Supreme Court. 5. Decision: Summary judgment affirming the decision of the Appeals
Facts: In the above case, employee Joel Hernandez was tested positive for cocaine. With the fear of being dismissed from his job, he acknowledged that his behaviour violated petitioner Raytheon Company's workplace conduct rules, and obviously, was pressed to quit his job. Also, the reason for the employee resignation was also based on the notion that had he not resigned it would be petitioner who would eventually fired him from his work. After more than two years of rehabilitation, petitioner applied to be re-employed alleging on his application that the following had previously hired him. In his application, he also attached letters coming from, his pastor about his active church participation and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counsellor about his regular visit and attendance at meetings and his immediate recovery. When a HR employee of petitioner reviewed Hernandez application, she then rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has a policy against rehiring employees who are terminated for workplace wrongdoing. According to the HR employee, she did not know that that employee was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. As a result to this development, Hernandez instituted a suit and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), averring that his rights has been violated in consonant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a consequence, gave a go signal to the respondent and issued a right-to-sue letter and the right to file an ADA action. Following this, respondent established an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) action, alleging that petitioner did not act on his application for the reason that he has a record of drug addition and/or because he was known before as being a drug user. On the other hand, petitioner responded by filing a summary judgement motion. This resulted to respondent's argumentation in the alternative that in the case that petitioner sought for a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it is still sufficient to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) because of that policy's disparate impact.
b) If Ahmad were terminated for refusing to shave his beard, he could bring the potential claim of religious discrimination against Mamma Jo’s Pizza under Title VII. In order for Ahmad to claim religious discrimination, he needs to show three things in order to establish and prove a prima facie case for disparate treatment. First, he must show that he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a Mamma Jo’s employment requirement. Next, he has to inform Mamma Jo’s about the conflict. Finally, he needs to prove that he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting no beard employment requirement.
Mr. Milhauser was employed with Minco in 2006. Between 2007 and 2009 he served three military deployments. In 2008, Minco experienced a decline in orders continuing into 2009. Minco cut costs including delaying purchases, reducing overtime, and making pay cuts. Despite these measures, in March of 2009 Minco eliminated 18 positions. This process was not successful and did not abate the decline and it was determined that 32 more positional cuts would be made in June. These cuts were determined by job duties, technical expertise, with employee attitude and work ethic being considered; seniority not being a factor. On June 3, 2009, Mr. Milhauser was terminated as part of the cutbacks. He filed two claims, the first being Discrimination and the second, Failure to provide reemployment as required by the USERRA. His first claim denied, he appealed the second claim regarding the USERRA.
In the case of EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Rancine, Katrina Shisler and Michelle Powell, who were servants at an International House of Pancakes restaurant franchise in Rancine, Wisconsin, alleged that they were sexually harassed by an assistant manager Rosalio Gutierrez. The restaurant franchise was owned by Management Hospitality of Rancine, Inc. (MHR). During the servants’ time of employment, both women made claims that they were subjected to frequent sexually explicit comments, gestures and innuendos on the job. Shisler reported the behavior to another assistant manager, Nadia Del Rio; however, she blew off the claims. Shisler and Powell then reported Gutierrez’s behavior to general manager, Michelle Dahl, who also dismissed their claims. On behalf of Shisler and Powell, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued MHR alleging that Gutierrez created a hostile work environment; therefore, they were liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury ruled in favor of the two women; however, MHR appealed the ruling with the argument that it was not liable, because it had taken acceptable corrective and preventative measurements with regards to the harassment.
Ms. Lawson stated she found out he had been fired from two other area hospitals
According to the Oklahoma City University Law review (2009), “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee…began investigating the conduct of employee Gene Hughes…following a complaint of sexual harassment by another employee” (p 3) which was not Vicky Crawford. Due to the fact that no one filed a complaint through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the investigation was picked up by the district’s human resource department. Further examination was conducted through a “…series of interviews with nine employees” (Law Review, 2009, p 3) with Ms. Crawford being one of the nine individuals. During the review of these allegations of sexual harassment, the employees were asked questions surrounding the accusations against
Maria DeSimone, 40 years old; wife and mother of two children of Palm Bay, Florida, was refused employment at the establishment in which she applied to. The circumstances surrounding the case were as follows. Ms. DeSimone possessed two years of previous restaurant experience, she applied for a position at Texas Roadhouse of Palm Bay to the manager of the facility. When she never heard back from the manager (who said he would get back to her); she happened to be discussing the situation with a friend; the friend told her that Texas Roadhouse had just hired her 19-year-old daughter to the position in which she had just applied for. Previously when she had not heard back from the manager about the position, he told her that “they weren’t hiring at this time” (Lee and Hymowitz,
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
Facts of the case: Anna’s immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly required that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees were aware of these closed-door meetings and, as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her co-workers. Anna asked Michael to clear up the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she scored low points for “integrity” and “interpersonal relations” as a consequence of the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to the employees who were promoted. She filed an action against her employer on the ground that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, is specific to this case concerning Marwan’s conduct and is clearly stated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This regulation protects employees against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, race, creed, origin and religion and relates to all employers whether local, state or national. Organizations that employ fifteen or more employees has to stand by this regulation (Civil Rights Act, n.d.). According to this law, a commission called Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has been arranged, to protect individuals in contradiction of discrimination and enforce this as well as additional pertinent laws such as discrimination. Discrimination within the workplace has been in existence for a long time and was initiated by the U.S. Authorities once hearing several cases of harassment. The discrimination law protects applicants, employers and employees. The law states that no employer can take recruitment decision solely on the basis of the race, origin, gender, handicap of the applicant and is unable to take favor over anyon...
...d October 31, 1978 by Congress. It was an amended addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating women who are pregnant are to be treated equally to others. “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes” (EEOC, 2013).