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.
Based on the case what are two defenses against sexual harassment that can be used by an employer?
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.
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.
Mr. Milhauser’s employment was terminated by Minco Product’s INC. as part of a workforce reduction in June of 2009. He filed suit for discrimination on the basis of military service and failure to provide reemployment as required by Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). His first motion was denied and he appealed only on the second claim. Verdict was in favor of Minco Products, INC in both suits.
Hope told Ms. Lawson she would help her find a new physician as Access Family Care Clinic wasn’t filing anymore of Ms. Lawson’s prescriptions. Ms. Lawson was also told she’d have to seek outside counselling. She wasn’t given any written notice that she was fired as a patient just received verbal information from Hope.
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,
The question before the Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital is if an employer should be held responsible if an employee who is biased and does not make decisions has an influence on a decision that an unbiased administrator or manager would not usually make. In this case, Mulally and Korenchuk fabricated an allegation that caused Buck to fire Staub. The Court decided that an employer can be held responsible when a biased employee intends to cause an unfavorable employment action by either taking an action or influencing an unbiased administrator. This is because of discriminatory animus which is intent, motive, or state of mind that discriminates against someone else. At the end of the decision, the question that is left to the lower court to
Later after reporting the case White received a notice that her job as a folk lifter has been reassigned another male member and that she has been relocated from her current job station to more strenuous manual difficult tasks. The employee filed a new lawsuit with EEOC citing retaliation actions against her for reporting sexual discrimination acts g against her immediate supervisor. She also filed a second case alleging that her employer has fixed surveillance camera something that was against her privacy rights. The company later her for alleged subordination. White filed the third case against her employer claiming that her suspension and demotion misfortunes emanated from her resolve to protest against sexual discrimination practices. The sixth circuit court as well as the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff remedies and affirmed that the company’s
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
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...
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s...
...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).