Worker's Compensation Case Summary

Decent Essays

The issue in this situation was whether or not the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment. Worker’s compensation was the employee’s exclusive remedy. Even though the employee was not technically on the clock, the court would most likely conclude that the injury was in the course of employment because the act of helping to hold up a shelf in order to prevent it from falling was in maintenance of the employer’s business. In the court’s view, she was “doing no more than what a reasonable employer would expect from a reasonable employee in her position.” It did not matter that her acts on behalf of the employer were combined with personal acts and undertaken outside of work hours. The court would most likely rule in favor of the employee. 6. The fatal injury occurred while on the job (they were riding in an ambulance and might have had to respond to an emergency call if one came in) and thus in the course of employment, the decision focused on the issue of whether it also arose out of …show more content…

No, she cannot still sue for wrongful termination because she submitted a letter of resignation. Additionally, the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case because she did not suffer an adverse employment action because she chose to resign her position. She was not fired she chose to resign because she could not move to another state to take another position. She was given an alternative job to do but she choose to resign instead. She cannot sue for wrongful termination. 5. Public policy would support the actions of the employee. The court should rule in favor of the employee because he was clearly just trying to help the woman that was being assaulted. He shouldn’t be reprimanded or disciplined for valuing the life of the woman being assaulted and for helping her out. The employee engaged in a heroic act. Moreover, his actions wouldn’t have exposed the store to potential liability. The court should rule in favor of the

Get Access