Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Public servants and public interest
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Public servants and public interest
According to Public policy Exception to Employment at Will, Employees are also citizens with rights and responsibilities to the larger society. Sometimes, the roles of employee and citizen conflict. (Chapter 18, P677).
In this case, store employee protected a physically assaulted woman and saved her from death. The employee can provide evidences for Public Policy Exception to Employment at Will by showing, 1. Saving another citizen from death is public policy, 2. The termination due to such conduct would discourage public policy, 3. Saving a citizen lead to employee’s termination. The ‘jeopardy element ‘ in public policy states that even when employee’s action is related to public policy, the employee will not be protected unless the court
decides that allowing termination would undermines public policy. There are some state laws , who give more protection to employees involved in actions related public policy. The employees should be encouraged to rescue other citizens when they are in danger. There is a clear public policy exists in emplyee’s conduct when he went out of the store to rescue the woman. The fedral law and state law encourages such activities of rescuing others from danger of death. The store manager should have understood the importance of public . policy and should not have terminated. The employee cannot argue that the termination is legal because the employee was responsible for potential liability of the store. The court should verify the conduct of the employee and evidences of public policy. To encourage activities rescuing other citizens , the court should suport the employee.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
The majority established this rationale by citing Kaisner Vs Kolb, McCain V. Florida Power Corps., City of Miami V. Horne, and Pinellas County written General Order A-9 as the basis for their reasoning. In these cases, with the exception of General Order A-9, the court opinion had been that law enforcement officers are liable for injuries caused by their own negligent or failure to adhere to standard public safety policy.
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
...s invasion outside the workplace, the limits to how much they can influence and invade personal lives become increasingly blurred. However, encouraging and offering incentives to employees to comply with this policy outside the workplace is not wrong as it would benefit the employees to do so. Having this policy inadvertently discriminates its employees based on their location, as discrimination whether direct or indirect is ethically integral to determining something as justifiable. As the process of justification is indeed like smoking, after doing it once, it becomes easier to do it again. Once it is done successfully to one case, it becomes more malleable as it can become synthesized to more and more complex and controversial cases.
Legislation in Ontario affects human resources. Some can be bad well others can be beneficial to the workplace. My paper will be focusing on the federal legislations in Ontario and how it is improving various non-unionized workplaces. At the end of my report I will be summarizing the concept of family status related to the 11 prohibited grounds in a case study regarding a single mom and how she almost lost her job with CN Rail.
Many employers have been baffled as they attempt to sort through the overlapping obligations created when a sick or injured worker's medical condition triggers the different rights and responsibilities under new federal laws. If businesses want to avoid costly lawsuits from disgruntled employees it is essential to understand their responsibilities under the laws. Employers must make a tw...
Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also change the terms of employment without notice and no penalties. Throughout this paper, the two sides to employment at will will be discussed, and different examples of employment at will cases will be given. At its most basic, employment at will is not the best path because it can create feelings of violation and betrayal in the employee and can create a negative public opinion or loss of profit for the business.
...lis Smith wrote a book called “Privacy: How to Protect What’s Left of it”, it expresses the fact that there are no legal actions in the process to express the care for a worker’s privacy equality in the working force. Smith feels as though it is periodically swept under the carpet, and those in charge of this issue of privacy think it does not outweigh other society problems, so it is overlooked. Thus, being the most complex yet controversial topics employees’ rights to privacy have been under the microscope for many years, and years to come.
It was established that a state cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression to the extent that employee’s interest outweighs employer’s interest. Pickering vs. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). The Pickering test balances “…between the interests of the employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id. Two factors that court
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
As a matter of public policy, should an employee be required to reinstate an unlawfully terminated employee even when that person is an illegal alien? Explain your reasoning.
You may ask yourself what is the Employment-At-Will doctrine. Well Google gives the meaning, “This refers to the presumption that employment is for an indefinite period of time and may be terminated either by employer or employee. This is the historical approach that courts have taken in interpreting employment relationships”. To illustrate this into simple terms, it simply means he or she can get laid off or fired or can just leave dependent upon the circumstances of the business. Do we see this in society daily? Yes we do, for example Schaefer Systems International will hire an employee through a temp service but whenever there time is up Schaefer simply lets them go. Simply because they are temp (temporary) workers. Throughout this paper
Many employment contracts especially in United States for example are at will, this means either the employer or employee can make legally terminate employment