Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,” Belanger claimed that qualified privilege did not apply to Swift in this case as the information was not given directly to another employer, but published online in a from where people other than the particular perspective employers he was interviewing with could access it (Arterton, 2008). The argument was made that a more accurate description of the reason for termination would occur if Swift was in direct contact with the other employers rather than simply having the vague description which cast Belanger in bad light. The website in question, known as DACS, is regularly used for trucking agencies during the hiring process and upon accepting a job at Swift, Belanger agreed to allow the company to provide the website with his employment history information, and not only are their options to contact employers about employee records, but employees have the ability to add comments to these records. (Arterton, 2008). Considering that Swift’s statement of why Belanger was fired was true and that Swift had permission from him to publish such information, along with Belanger’s opportunity to comment on the record in question and the ready ability of potential employers to contact Swift for more information make Belanger’s case against Swift’s qualified privilege difficult to Swift, while truthful, through the vagueness of their comment on Belanger’s termination harmed his chances of employment and could have provided a clearer statement as to the specific reason he was fired. By giving the circumstances of the accident Swift could allow employers the ability to determine if the accident was preventable. A different system of determining the fault of an accident could also be a wise decision on Swift’s part, rather than assuming guilt unless proven otherwise. While Swift does appear to be at some level of fault, the fact that they ask employee permission to post on the website and do so to increase highway safety shows that they do have ethical standards. Yet, Belanger had alternatives to suing, as he could have obtained a copy of Swift’s record of the incident to allow employers to look at the situation for
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
It seems that the major issue here is whether or not one can use age as a factor in terms of discrimination when the discrimination was not intentional. If for example it turns out that the people who are laid off are over the age of 40, even though no malicious intent is discovered, it still may be construed as age discrimination. This issue has been somewhat controversial for some time, as most litigants in age discrimination lawsuits realize that they ...
uses logos strongly by providing not only his viewpoint from a business perspective, but also a conceding viewpoint that works in his favor. Edmond references work that involves children, and claims that “the hiring process” of such employees is the most ethically sound time to discover if the prospective hires engage in “inappropriate social media communication with minors” (Edmond Jr. 133). Typically, in the hiring process, a background check is done on the prospective employee. However, a background check won’t necessarily reveal if they commit undesirable behaviors in their private lives. Therefore, Edmond strengthens his logos immensely by referencing a particular scenario where his claim works. Edmond also addresses individuals who believe that having access to an employee’s Facebook is a “horrible invasion of privacy” by stating that sharing personal information on Facebook is similar to “shouting your private business” in public (Edmond Jr. 134). In his comparison, Edmond reveals to his audience that sharing on Facebook can have harsh side-effects, as would shouting in the street. Since Edmond is able to reference a contingent argument and still get his point across, his logos receives another boost. Logos acts as an essential part in Edmond’s essay, and works efficiently to prove his
SHELLEY v. KRAEMER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 March 2014. .
While Daniel Ellsberg’s story is certainly one worthy of a blockbuster documentary, it is not the only case to have made strides for our First Amendment rights. In a similarly unprecedented case, the Supreme Court deliberated on a public employee’s constitutional right to publicly criticize his employer. In Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision against the school board, who had fired Mr. Pickering for writing a critical letter that was “detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the schools of the district” (Pickering v. Board of Education).
Bags and purses in schools have changed from being the schools property to personal property, because of one case. The New Jersey v. T.L.O court case gave a student a way to change privacy for students nationally. Even though in some situations the use of bags are turned into the institution belongings. It started with one flame in a foul school restroom with 2 negligent girls , both eager for a whiff of smoke. The teen had made the situation escalade by lying about even smoking the cigarette, which the school had curiosity about. Only the case didn't slide through the courts with ease there were many setbacks and misconceptions. The light of the case came from the existence of the fourth amendment dealing with personal privacy and reasonable
This case is distinguishable from Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. 1976 in that Bleary was not fired as a direct result of reporting the information. He was not fired after reporting to his supervisor, both in person and later via written communication. He refused to sell the product, complained to anyone that would listen and violated the company communication policy. He had become a “nuisance”, unable to fulfill his job requirements and unable to work effectively with fellow employees. Palmateer’s actions posed no threat to the daily operations of International Harvester Co. Bleary’s actions on the other hand, were infringing on the company’s interest of maintaining business operations. While we support Bleary’s right to voice his concerns, the court cannot grant protection to every unqualified employee with unfounded speculation to disrupt a company’s normal course of
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE. (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301
The following is a case study analysis of Case 10.1 Belanger v. Swift Transportation. This particular case involves one former employee, Nathaniel Belanger and Swift Transportation Incorporated, a trucking company. This particular case revolves around Nathaniel Belanger braking one of the Swift Transportation “Forbidden Five” safety policies. The “Forbidden Five” are five infractions that can lead to immediate termination of its drivers (Melvin and Katz, 2015, pp. 265). One of these infractions involves rear-ending another vehicle.
FR Pub. Corporation 807). Judge Clark further acknowledged that, “the work possesses great reader interest, for it is both amusing and instructive; but it may be fairly described as a ruthless exposure of a once public character” (Ibid 807-808). Nevertheless, Judge Clark noted that “none of the cited rulings goes so far as to prevent a newspaper or magazine from publishing the truth about a person, however intimate, revealing, or harmful the truth may be” (Ibid 808). The decision cited Warren and Brandeis’s famous words indicating the right and need for privacy in the modern world, within certain limits – particularly regarding public officers. Still, Clark noted, “‘even public figures were not to be stripped bare.’…the matters which concern the private life, habits, acts, and relations of an individual…have no legitimate connection with his fitness for a public office” (Ibid 809) Clark even conceded that “Sidis today is neither politician, public administrator, nor statesman. Even if he were, some of the personal details revealed were of the sort that Warren and Brandeis believed ‘all men alike are entitled to keep from popular curiosity’” (Ibid). Despite Clark’s clear acknowledgement of Sidis’ privacy rights, and despite his dependency on Warren and Brandeis’ words, his decision
As the ford ECO one of my main responsibility is make money for my stockholder while following the legal and ethical custom of the industry. My stakeholder in the ford pinto are investor who want to see return on their investment which means the company have to produce a greater profit every year. In the situation of the ford pinto case as the ECO I would have done the same thing that ford at the time which is keep the flaw in the design. The stats in the Fatalities report, showed the flew in the design could cause death but it will be a very low percent of death. allowing the engineers to redesign will delay the roll out of the product which and the redesign cost will be expensive. Although it seems sample to redesign. For example, we could
...ge James Selna for pretrial proceedings (Gorman, S. 2010). Because the Toyota Corporation may have been unethical in its business practices, the corporation suffers the loss, and now has a faulty reputation.
In June 2012, a social media defamation case was brought to trial, the Clay Corporation v. Colter. In Massachusetts, Clay Nissan fires an employee and the emplo...
Many job seekers will face employment discrimination or perhaps to be treated differently because of their skin color, age, or religion. Although it is illegal to discriminate in hiring and firing, however, one of the mo...