In this case, Pat has a course of action in accordance with the Workers Adjustments and Restraining Notification Act. This provides that an employer should give a sixty-calendar-day advance notification before dismissal from office. Employees entitled to this right include managers and supervisors. Newcorp violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by providing a thirty-day notification unlike the required sixty and Pat worked at a managerial position. The advance notice it to allow an employee to transit from the prospective loss of employment, to seek another opportunity and if necessary to enter skill training program to enable the worker to compete in the job market. This is especially so in a case such as that of Pat, which involved him moving from one state to another and selling his home in addition to having his wife leaving her job. Newcorp is liable to give Pat an equal amount of back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to sixty days unlike the thirty-day severance pay he was given (United States, 1990).
On the other hand, Newcorp can argue that an unforeseeable business circumstance that interrupted the normal operations of the company existed. When the dismissal is caused by business circumstances not reasonably forecasted at the time that the sixty-day notice would have been required. Newcorp can also argue that before Pat’s dismissal, it was seeking capital or business reasonably and believes that a sixty-day advance notice pay would preclude its efforts to acquire business or capital. According to the employment agreement, that provided that Newcorp observed employment and discharge at its will.
By Pat contributing in the local school board meeting even though no one knew him, he was acting as a whistleblower and was acting in his capacity as an employee of Newcorp. The state and federal laws prohibit discrimination and protects the right to engage or organize whistle blowing. Pat has a course of action against Newcorp for discharging him for whistle blowing and he can prove that the management was noticeably unfriendly.
Legal Encounter 2
Under the Occupational Safety and Healthy Act, the employer should provide its employee from hazardous environments such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels or unsanitary conditions. In this case Sam claimed that in the wire-coating section there chemicals that could harm an early-state fetus being carried by a newly pregnant woman. Although Paula was not pregnant, the company ought to protect her and her away from imminent danger that could have a later repercussion and the company would be held liable if proved that it was due to its negligence. Newcorp believed what it told by its supervisor and it has a legal duty of care for its employees.
Since Sam did not have any factual evidence to support his claims, Paula can file for a case against the company. The court is to order an examination to the claims and prove whether the claims were correct or false. If Sam is found to have misrepresented the company and Paula either falsely or negligently, Newcorp can litigate a court action against Sam and claim for damages made upon the company. Due to the bad reputation the company is getting from Sam’s behavior, Newcorp can sue Sam under the law of torts for defamation.
For Paula, since Sam was working for the company and it is assumed that he acting as the company brain, Paula can institute proceedings against Newcorp for damages or discrimination or false misrepresentation. Paula can take a course of action against Sam for harassment. Every person has a right to be with whoever they want to be with and Sam was taking this far and taking the rule by this thumbs. This is sexual harassment and it is chargeable in a court of law.
Legal Encounter 3
Occupational Safety and Health Act, ensures that employers provide safe working conditions for employees free from hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, excessively heat and cold conditions or unsanitary conditions. According to OSHA regulations, all employers should report within eight hours if an employee dies from a work-caused scene. In addition, all fatalities within the workplace related to heart attacks should be reported. Section 11 (c) of the Act prohibits the employer from discharging or retaliating against any employee who has exercised his rights as an employee under the Act. These rights include complaining to OSHA, or participating and testifying in any proceeding involving to an OSHA inspection. In adherence to this, Newcorp would be mitigating its exposure to liability in case of any proceedings against it (United States, 1990).
Although according to OSHA regulations, Newcorp can be held to have violated this Act by providing dangerous working conditions to Paul who has caused got a terminal illness and he can sue the company for its occurrence. It is evident that the working conditions for Paul are hazardous, the employer is aware of the hazards involved in this kind of work, the hazard is imminent and Sam could be harmed or killed by the machine. In addition, the hazard is collectable, as it had previously killed someone. If Paul can prove these facts then Newcorp can be assumed to have violated the Act.
For Newcorp, it can argue that the Safety manager deemed the machine fit for working and no imminent danger could occur out of the company’s negligence. Since the machine is not hazardous as Paul claims as per the safety manager, Newcorp should call in OSHA inspectors to enter, inspect and inquire during normal working hours the workplace in order to ascertain its safety. If the machine is found to hazardous, Newcorp could be held liable for charges of negligence and failure to act on the safety of the employees.
Fortune. (1966). Plant and product directory. Volume 2. Washington, DC: U. S. Market Research Dept. of Fortune
United States Division of the Federal Register. Federal Register Division, United States. Office of the Federal Register. (2006). Code of Federal regulations. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
United States Govt. (1990). United States Code annotated: Comprising all laws of a general and permanent nature under arrangement of official code of the laws of the United States, with annotations from Federal and State courts. Volume 1. Washington, DC: West Pub. Co.