Devry HRM 593 Week 8 Final Exam
1. (TCO A) Carla Thomas, a nonsmoker, often encouraged her co-workers to quit smoking. Her new manager, Paul, a smoker, was annoyed by what he considered her constant nagging. He moved her desk from a separate room with a window to a cubicle surrounded by smokers, who smoked all day. Paul refused Carla’s request to create a no-smoking area in the office and he refused her request to be moved back to the separate room. After four weeks of breathing secondhand smoke, Carla quit. What, if any, recourse does Carla have against her employer? Explain the possible legal theories for recovery and assess the likelihood of prevailing in the litigation. (Points : 30)
2) (TCO B) Mary Smith was an employee of Thomas Contracts, a pipeline construction company. Mary was supervised by H.D. Thomas, son of the owner of the business. She became involved in an affair with Thomas, who was married. Thomas ended the affair and subsequently fired Mary based on her performance since the affair began. Mary filed a suit against Thomas Contracts, alleging that her discharge was due to gender discrimination, sex discrimination, and in violation of Title VII. Analyze and determine whether she succeeded. Identify and explain the applicable law and statutory authority in conjunction with the facts in the scenario to support your conclusion.
3) (TCO C) Carla Miller worked as a promotions director for a radio station owned by Dilner, Inc. Miller used a company van in her work, which required her to organize promotional events in bars and nightclubs. Dilner issued a memorandum to all employees prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages while at company events; violation of the policy was grounds for discharge.
Wait.... Hire Me To Get 100% Original Help In . With No Upfront Fees. Watch The Video Below For More Information & How It Works!
Name: Jennifer Lucas
Status: Online ⬤
Classes Taken: 3878
In May 1994, Mark Lang became Miller’s supervisor. One month prior to that date, Miller missed one day of work, explaining that she had been out late drinking the night before. The incident was noted in her file. Lang was aware of the entry in her file; he was particularly sensitive to issues of drug and alcohol abuse because he had received treatment himself for chemical dependency. About a year later, management became suspicious that Miller had driven the company van after drinking. Management hired a private investigator, Samuels, to follow her. On June 6, 1995, Samuels observed Miller drinking at several bars and then driving away in the van. He also observed her drinking with some of the station’s advertising clients two days later. Miller, who weighed about 250 lbs, admitted that she had about five drinks over the course of six hours, during which time she had also consumed food. Samuels called Lang when Miller left the bar. Lang demanded the keys, which Miller surrendered to him.
The next day, Miller was informed that her actions on the previous night were reason for termination. Miller was offered the opportunity to enroll in a chemical dependency treatment program due to the possibility that she might be an alcoholic. Miller was informed that she could complete the program with no loss in pay, or she would be fired. She rejected the treatment and was fired. She sued Dilner and the ADA, alleging that Dilner fired her because it regarded her as an alcoholic. In applying applicable law to the scenario, determine how the court ruled in her case. Forecast the outcome and set forth the analysis and breakdown for your conclusion, utilizing applicable case law and statutory authority in your response.
4. (TCO D) Shepherd Construction was the general contractor on a job site to build a retail store. There were no other general contractors on the job site. Shepherd hired a plumbing company to install the pipes at the job site. A Shepherd employee was killed when the dirt walls fell on him as he was digging the holes for the building foundation. A plumber was in the hole and was also killed. Explain the application of OSHA in conjunction with the fact pattern. Analyze and evaluate the potential causes of action and liability, if any, of Shepherd, the retail store, and the plumbing company for the deaths that took place at the job site. (Points : 30)
5) (TCO E) An ambulance service transports disabled individuals on a non-emergency basis. Jane was hired as a night dispatcher. She worked at home, and was required to be on duty to take calls for service from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Thursday, and from 9:00 p.m. Friday to 7:00 a.m. on Monday. She was paid $550 per month. She was not given any special training, she was simply instructed how to fill in record sheets, and how to call the ambulance crew to notify them of the service request. Jane was free to engage in personal business as long as it did not interfere with the calls, and was able to leave her home as long as she made sure that someone was available to answer the phone.
6) (TCO F) In accepting an early retirement package from his employer, Eddy could not work as a hotel/restaurant worker. He took a job as a supervisor at a local restaurant. Eddy continued to receive full benefits from his previous employer for two years when he was informed that the pension plan had changed and that his benefits would be terminated because he was working in the hotel/restaurant industry. Apply the legal criteria of ERISA to the scenario and analyze what, if any, legal recourse is available to Eddy. Identify the potential legal claim and assess the likelihood of prevailing in conjunction with the potential employer liability.
7) (TCO G) After noticing some items stolen from the store, a manager asked an employee, Frank, to take a polygraph test. Frank refused, claiming that he did not steal anything. Frank also reminded Jeff that he did not have access to the area where the stollen items were kept. Jeff fired Frank because he refused to take the polygraph test. Frank intends to file suit. Determine how the suit would be filed. Set forth the legal basis for the suit. Assess the likelihood that Frank will prevail in the suit. Include applicable law in your analysis.
8) (TCO H) Hal’s security company hired three temporary workers through an outside temporary employment agency called Deb’s Temps. Hal didn’t ask if background checks had been done on the employees. Deb did not check the criminal records for the workers hired by Hal. One of the workers had been convicted of burglary and had just recently been released from prison. While working for Hal, he burglarized the owner of the home. Determine who the owner should sue and the legal basis for the suit. Assess the likelihood of the owner prevailing. Analyze what should have been done, from the employer standpoint, to avoid the potential for liability. Integrate applicable law into your response.