Introduction This essay will state the basis of Anicich v. Home Depot USA Inc. A brief case overview will be provided to give context to the written analysis that follows. Additionally, precedent was established in Ellereth regarding intentional torts committed outside the scope of their employment and the decisions related to this situation. The implications behind the decision made in the analyzed case study will be discussed concerning how employer/employee relationships will be affected. Case Overview The case Anicich v. Home Depot USA Inc involves a lawsuit against Home Depot after a pregnant employee was murdered by her supervisor at an offsite event (Kirila, 2017). Despite the fact that the incident occurred off of Home Depot’s premises, the seventh circuit ruled that the business was …show more content…
Employees should expect to feel safe at work and that they won’t be punished monetarily for not complying with a supervisor’s inappropriate wishes. Although the perpetrator was assigned anger management courses, the store showed irresponsibility by following through to ensure that the perpetrator had actually completed the courses. Setting the precedent that nonaction from an employer is unacceptable when there is a record of inappropriate behavior is present will ideally prevent future tragedies like the one that occurred in this case. A previous decision made in the case Burlington Industries, Inc v. Ellerth noted that employers are liable for supervisory employees’ intentional torts that occur outside the scope of their employment and when this supervisory authority is abused, they are subject to an affirmative defense (Kirila, 2017). A plaintiff must prove that a particular unfitness was present to succeed in a claim by proving that at the time of the defendant’s inaction or action that some harm could have been reasonably
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. 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.
(5 points) Based on the facts of the case you have selected, is it possible the employer can also be held criminally liable? Explain your answer.
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings. In most cases, the decisions are made upon determining weather employee was acting in their own personal capacity and interest, or in the course of their employment.
The main issue with regards to the applicability of S1322(4)(a) to the appointment of Helen was the meaning of the word contravention.
...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law
During recent years, the principle and practice of employment at will has been under attack. Employment-at-will has been a fixture in the United States employment law since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800’s. In the simplest and earlier state, employment at will meant that an employee who worked for an indefinite period of time worked at the will of the employer. Absent a contractual provision to the contrary, either party could terminate the employment for any reason. At least 55% of all employees and managers in the private sector of the workforce in the United States today are “at-will” employees (Radin & Werhane, 2003). On the surface, employment at will appeared to be a neutral doctrine fiving both the employer and the employee a way out of an undesirable employment relationship. However, the doctrine in practice worked to the benefit of...
Colorado State University-Global Campus. (2014). Module 7 – Criminal Law. [Blackboard ecourse]. In MGT 320 – The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (p. 1). Greenwood Village, CO: Author.
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.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty-first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case, and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.
Throughout history we’ve seen many instances of millions of people being wrongfully persecuted. During the 1940’s one of the most famous examples of a genocide was the Holocaust which claimed the lives on many innocent people. This can be related to the Armenian genocide which happened to be only 30 years previously and took a significant amount of lives as well. Although at first glance both circumstances have a plethora of differences you and I will be quite surprised when we dive deeper into the similarities.
Chapter 19. p413. John G.Fleming [4] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [5] Vicarious Liability for Employers. Andrew Scott-Howman.
In navigating the legal system, it is important to look at the evidence and situations that surround need to establish a supervisor’s liability. To force an obligation on an administrator,
Workplace violence is any action or verbal menacing with the intent to inflict physical or psychological violence on others. The US Department of Labor defines workplace violence as “An action (verbal, written, or physical aggression) which is intended to control or cause, or is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury to oneself or others, or damage to property. Workplace violence includes abusive behavior toward authority, intimidating or harassing behavior, and threats.”("Definitions," n.d.)