Employee Harassment And Employee Misconduct

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

Everyone that goes to work expects to go to a place where they will not be harassed and will work in a friendly and fair environment. There are many instances of a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and berating due to religion, just to name a few. Likewise, there are instances where employees may think they are dealing with a hostile work environment when in fact they are not, such as rude and obnoxious coworkers. Employees and companies alike should be aware of what constitutes a hostile workplace environment, harassment, etc., so as to avoid any possible litigation.

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

1. Service users suffered gross neglect such as little or no support to wash and shower, left for hours in wet and dirty beds and refused to help. Also service users are forced to share rooms. (Care Standards Act 2002)

The reporting party (RP) stated her son Da' Rell Jones DOB: 10/12/85 has lived in the facility for approximately 13 years. The RP stated on a visit she observed that her son's right eyebrow was swollen and escorted her son outside of the home. The RP stated her son is non-verbal but understands and is able to shake his head yes and no. The RP asked her son if someone had hit him and he nodded yes. The RP stated she named off the names of the caregivers and when she came to a caregiver named Chips, her son identified the caregiver by nodding no. The RP stated she notified the Regional Center of the incident. The RP stated that she is being retaliated against for filing the complaint with the Regional Center. On one occasion while out with her

RP stated law enforcement received a call from an anonymous caller stated an employee, Shemaiah Messengale grabbed the child Marley's arm which is fractured. Law enforcement contacted the child's mother to verify injuries. It was disclosed the child had suffered 4 fractures to her elbow and wrist. The RP stated law enforcement spoke with owner/licensee of the facility and the employee accused of causing the injury. They reported Marley sustained the injuries accidentally when she fell from slide. The RP stated the child was treated at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) by Dr. Lindsey Andras who determined the injuries are consistent with a fall. Law enforcement did not speak with treating doctor to confirm the information. The RP disclosed

The record presents no real issue of materialistic facts that Orleans Regional Hospital did not employ over 100 employees, this caused Orleans Regional Hospital to be pursued as an employer to the WARN Act. Most of the employees who were still employed at North Louisiana Regional Hospital Partnership to become employees for Brentwood, which also operated in the same physical location as North Louisiana Regional Hospital Partnership. They even had the extent of the same phone number. Both hospitals treated patients with the same conditions including psychiatric and substance abuse disorders which lead to liabilities.. The defendant had also failed to provide court with detailed information on how the total number of hours claimed attorneys fees were unreasonable. The district court however found the, reasonable for the work performed. The defendants’ false allegation that the entries are unreasonable did not persuade them that the district court abused its power and kept matters private causing

The Patrick Haynes case involves the violation of reasonable care, after being assaulted by three correction officers that caused intentional trauma and injuries to his rectum area. The details of the case are that inmate Patrick Haynes assaulted a correction officer after being written up for misconduct. Inmate Patrick Haynes assaulted the correction officer by throwing feces and urine in the unsuspecting officer’s face. Later that night after lights out, the three correction officers went to his cell, restrained him and forcibly inserted a broom stick into his rectum. The next morning he was found by day shift officers and transported to the infirmary. Patrick Haynes after receiving medical care sued with judgement being found in his favor.

Ohio, long-term care facilities, had several incidences of abuse not adequately investigated by the facility or reported to the Ohio Department of Health within 24 hours. Therefore, the subsequent reports due within five days were not completed (Ohio Health Care Association, 2016c). The staff members involved in the alleged abuse were not removed from patient care immediately and were permitted to work one week past the incident. The primary reason for not properly reporting these issues was that the nurse was “so busy that she did not think about it” (Ohio Health Care Association, 2016b, p. 2). “

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Sexual harassment is discrimination that involves any uninvited comments, exploits, or behavior regarding sex, gender, or sexual orientation. If any type of violation is made by a co-worker, a boss, a work acquaintance, or even a non-employee such as a client, vendor, or contractor, this will be considered unlawful sexual harassment within the work environment. Sexual harassment can create a hostile and uneasy work environment. Sexual harassment includes inappropriate verbal advances, unwelcomed physical behavior that creates an aggressive, hostile, intimidating or malicious work environment for employees. Sexual harassment includes sending suggestive e-mails, notes, and

Preamble: This case is a potential negligence case involving a swimming pool and a ten-year child who was under the care and supervision of neighbors at a public campground. Potential defendants are the neighbors and the campground owners. The only witnesses appear to be the two ten-year girls, one of whom was injured.

Organizations have an obligation to create a harassment free environment for its employees. Harassment doesn’t have to be of a sexual nature. An organization is liable if the harassment is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in adverse employment actions such as the victim being fired, demoted, or transferred. Harassing a person based on their sex is illegal. Sexual harassment has a great impact on an employee’s productivity as well as poses a major impact on an organization’s finances in litigation.

As seen in the case study, a court decision may be one way for any company to legally define what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, but there are many ways to define sexual harassment. Everyone has different views and tolerance levels towards sexual harassment. When a case of sexual harassment occurs in a workplace, however, it comes down to how the courts define sexual harassment. The Supreme Court defines sexual harassment to be unlawful in two ways. “The first type involves sexual harassment that results in a tangible employment action;” this is referred to as quid pro quo. For example, if an employee complies with the harasser’s request, then she will get a raise. This unlawful act is usually presented in the workplace by a person who has an upper hand, such as a manager, to ensure that s/he will get what s/he wants. Employees are often victimized by fear that they will not get promoted or that they will get fired. They also dread that if a complaint is filed, it will not be handled correctly. “This instance of sexual harassment always involves another violation of employee rights; [sic] wrongful termination.” This would occur, for instance, when “a supervisor . . . tells a subordinate that . . . she must be sexually cooperative with [him] or . . . she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting” (“U.S. Supreme Court Defines”). [schwinlaw.com]

There are federal laws put in position to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Most employees sometimes don’t even realize what sexual harassment is are when they are committing this violation. On the flip side an employee may not realized when they are being sexually harassed and when is the appropriate time to speak up. Education on sexual harassment has increased within the workplace as cases are more public and fines are getting steeper.