Analysis Of Debra Cohen 's Article On Wrongful Termination Against Her Former Employer Essay

Facts In 1979, plaintiff Charles Starzynski was working as a program director for Sacramento radio stations, which includes KXPR and KXJZ, which was owned by Capital Public Radio. His supervisor assured Charles that employment would not be terminated if his work performance were satisfactory. Later, the plaintiff signed a written contract stating that the radio station or he can “terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause or advanced notice”. Plaintiff later resigned from the radio station but later filed a complaint against Capital Public Radio station for wrong discharge that violated

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawnmarie stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawnmarie besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

4. Explain why the disclaimer in the employee manual does not have the effect desired by the employer. Champion Jogbra employee manual was unclear and misleading. Disclaimers when used should contain language that is clear, specific and communicated effectively to the employees. Disclaimers when used should be presented in a manner that is prominent and obvious manner, (Walsh). Champion Jogbra, on one hand the employer, will provide fair and equal treatment, on another hand the employee can be terminated at anytime. These are mixed messages the employer, Jogbra was providing its employees. Policies listed in the employee handbook made the employees feel as though their job was protected, even though Champion Jogbra does not offer employment contracts. The guidelines listed in the employee handbook as champion Jogbra so eloquently called them are not a part of an employment contract and should not be taken as such. However the guidelines were vague and gave the employees false pretense that their

The nature of the employment is most likely ‘at will’, in which the employer and employee are free at any time to terminate the employment (Kubasek, 2009). If the employment manual laid out grounds for termination and did not include ‘at will’, there is a possibility that a court would rule that the employee reasonably took the printed manual at face value, although in this particular case the employer would be able to counter with misconduct which is also assumed to be in said manual under just cause for termination (Kubasek, 2009).

California is an at-will employment state, meaning an employee can be terminated at any time, with or without cause. Yet, some employers get surprised when an employee resigns then comes back to sue for wrongful termination.

In Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc., 878 P. 2d 360 (Okla. 1994), while citing Hinson, recognized that an implied employment contract claim might be brought based solely on the language of an employee manual; in Hayes, 905 P 2d at 783 ( handbook promises to job security which are definite and not “vague assurances” may be enforceable if reasonably relied on by employee).

While the slow erosion of the "employment at-will" doctrine has received considerable attention during the last several years, 1 a more subtle liberalization of employee protection has correspondingly evolved in defamation law. Employees who have been terminated,

Employment and Labor law initially arose out of protection for employee as a result of the outcomes being one-sided towards employers. There are four categories dealing with employment law. The most famous of these is the Employment at Will which is also known as the Law of Wrongful discharge to many. Pay and Benefits is another category to be mindful of when thinking in terms of Labor Law, this category also includes safety and privacy issues for the employee. The third category deals with Union-management relationship, and last but not least is discrimination and harassment. Who has what responsibility in these sensitive issues is what we are going to discuss within this document.

An unjustifiable dismissal occurs when an employer unfairly dismisses and employee, under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. An employer may make a dismissal for many reasons such as repeated poor work performance, theft or harassment. However, for an employer to prove that the dismissal was justified they must undertake the correct procedures to ensure the decision was not unreasonable. Section 103A(3) of The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires that the Court considers whether the employer has firstly sufficiently investigated the allegations, secondly has raised any concerns with the employee, thirdly gave the employee reasonable opportunity to respond and finally whether the employer considered the employee’s explanation. All employers must act in good faith when taking disciplinary acts to ensure that an unjustifiable dismissal is not carried out (Unfair Dismissal and Personal Grievances, 2006). The question ‘should all or some employers in New Zealand have the right to hire and fire without the threat of having to defend against an unjustifiable dismissal should they discontinue that employment relationship’ will be argued in detail with an explanation of trade offs for New Zealander’s as well as Employment at Will with the effect it both have on employees and the organisation, this will be examined in greater detail with supporting evidence.

The second case involved three former employees of EmCare, a physician outsourcing group. Gloria Stokes reported sexual harassment from her supervisor, who happened to be a CEO of the company, to the company’s human resource department. Bonnie Shaw and Luke Trahan jointly contacted Human Resources concerning a remark this same CEO had made to Bonnie Shaw’s 15-year-old daughter when the daughter accompanied her to work on “Bring Your Child to Work Day”. None of the three received an appropriate response from Human Resources. The article does not state the employment status of Gloria Stokes, but Bonnie Shaw and Luke Trahan were fired six weeks after voicing

This team used a multitude of sources to help contribute to the decision as to what solution(s) would be most beneficial for the hospital leaders to implement in response to the nurses’ protests, the majority of which mainly originate from the internet, aside from the primary article itself and Duhigg. One major source that information was gathered from in order to make an informed decision on the matter is the Harvard Business Law Review. It was through the useful knowledge provided in these articles that we as a team of hospital leaders were able to inform ourselves on the dangers that can be associated with both breaking an employee’s contract and fighting against the union of these employees. As written on the homepage of the website, “The Harvard Business Law Review and Harvard Business Law Review Online together aim to be the premier sources for articles concerning laws governing business organization and capital markets.” (HBLR). Upon reading this website, we each were able to become fully educated on both the legal and moral issues, as well as their respective consequences, that correlate to our hospital’s struggle with its employees. It can be confidently stated that this source is one of high quality and can be relied upon to provide factual, helpful information relevant to the concluding of our final decision

The case study has some very important facts that define not only some errors in judgement but also some very important violations in employment law. This case study is based out of a law firm that has hired a partner who did not disclose that she had a child and the case eludes that she is a single parent. Based on the case study the other partner that is in the same office who hired her is starting to complain about the fact that she had not disclosed the fact that she had a child. To this end the partner has said that “he was upset because she had not said anything about the child when she interviewed” (Walsh, 2013, p. 96). The next issue that arises in this case study is that the male partner that hired her is not only perturbed about the fact that this new partner has a child but also sees her as less than him. The partner has started treating her harshly and has started using foul language around her and has begun claiming that “the commitment differential between men and women” and telling her a story about how incredulous he was when a female partner who had been on maternity leave asked about achieving partnership” (Walsh, 2013, p. 96).

The Cunningham case examined whether the plaintiff, who sought to invoke personal grievances procedures, was an employee or an independent contractor*. Only had the plaintiff been an employee, such remedies were available.* The judges unanimously held that he was a contractor. The reasons set out in coming to this conclusion sheds light on whether the Koia case interpreted fairly the Cunningham’s court of Appeal decision. The Court of Appeal established that, not limited to what was expressed in contract, all relevant circumstances and the operation of the contract were to be identified in determining one’s status of employment. Both Cooke P and Hardie

Walsh, D. J. (2016). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 5th Edition. [Strayer University Bookshelf].

‘the actual operation of legal rights in the workplace depends on the power, knowledge and organisation of the parties as well as on the statute book’ (Edwards, 2003:15)