Briefing paper 1
Burlarley vs Walmart’s Store Inc
On the issue of the cashier throwing a bag to the customer, the court found the case inapplicable. However, the case would have been different had the court considered some work related tests. Work related tests such as psychological test and medical examinations have the ability to show the medical history of the worker, and by looking at them, the court would have gotten the history of the cashier at hand. If found not to have any medical or psychological problem, the court would figure out the cashier guilty of misconduct and recommend some compensation for such misconducts.
It was unethical for Walmart to deny the cashier’s liability on that action because the cashier was an employed person under the Walmart Company. Anything done within the company is liable to the employer, and not the employee. Therefore, the Company ought to face the law because it is the company name in question since the employee works for the company in question.
Most of the employers would prefer work-related tests to assess the liability of intentional wrongdoings of their workers. This is because, they can tell the sudden change from the previous work-related test they conducted to the employer, and if found that the employee did something intentional which is not likely to be in the work-related test, the employee will be left to face the law alone without involving the company.
The fact of the case is that the cashier did something against the ethics of the employees to their customers. Again, the customer did good to sue the company, but the company need not deny the liability of their employee. The case would have been liable to the company because the cashier is a worker to that company. On the other hand, it was wise for the employee to be denied liability by the company because whatever happened was unacceptable. The cashier would have been made to face the law to be an example to other employees. Again, the fact that the customer was denied his right means that he was not respected, and all customers deserve respect at all time.
Briefing paper 2
Dessert Cab, Inc. v. Marino
Given that both Marino and Edwards are employees under the same company, they would have solved their differences to prevent Marino from taking this case to the court. Besides, they would have gone to the principle of this company, address their differences, solve and continue working together in that company. It is possible that once the company compensates for her injuries, she will lose her employment, and will have no other place to get her daily bread. On the contrary, it was a wise decision for Marino to sue Dessert Cab Inc. She was fighting for her rights which were violated as per work-related tests. Edwards was an employee of this company, and therefore, suing the company that he works for was the right decision.
Briefing Paper 3
On the sex discrimination case, females are discriminated against at the same scenario where men are favored. Fewer women get employed, and they have more deductions than men. Again, women are not employed even in instances that they have better qualifications than men. Barbano sued the Madison County for sex discrimination, but there could be a possibility that the employment does not suit woman due to their maternity leave which can make them abandon their jobs. Wilson was a worker of Special Emergency Reaction Team (SERT) and when injured, he ought to be compensated by the employer because he got injured as an employer of Modesto. On the other hand, the company is not supposed to compensate him because he was not in the line of his duty.
Overstreet working for Chicago Transport Authority (CTA) filed for unemployment compensation benefit, but it could not be possible given that the company had realized she was under some drugs influence, and the company took it as their responsibility to rehabilitate her. On the contrary, she can win the case to be compensated because she got ill at the line of duty and as an employer of CTA.
The Act of Union filing a case of unfair labor practice claim may not bear fruits because what Arrow did was to distribute its product line to reach its customers and to offer better services. On the contrary, the case may bear fruits because the labor has not been distributed as they should to each product line, and that they are underrepresented. Family and Medical Leave Act specifies the need for leave that employee should enjoy. It is good because it provides workers a good chance to be with their families, as well as time to take care of their families. However, this act is not good where it specifies the time a worker must have worked to have the leave. This is because, emergency cases may arise without evidence, but the worker can be denied the leave if he or she has not worked for the specified time, and this denies them chances to be with their families.
Briefing Paper 4
Did Whirlpool Act Ethically in this Case?
Under OSHA regulation, employees can engage in self-help because not all employers can demonstrate the OSHA policy. With that in mind, employees can engage in self-help occasions where they help other workers by ensuring that they are working in the safe environment. On the contrary, employees cannot engage in other self-help circumstances because OSHA regulations are there to protect them, and those employers against OSHA regulations are punished by the law.
Whirlpool did not act ethically in the case brought forward by Thomas and Deemer. The fact is these workers were fighting for their rights as workers, which is to provide a safe working environment for all workers. Complaining that the place was not safe for them was acceptable, but reprimanding them for giving their opinion to better their workplace was unethical. On the contrary, whatever Whirlpool did was ethical. Other workers working under this company had not complained about their safety because everything the company does is employee-oriented. Additionally, their action to inform the OSHA was too much because they would have given time for the company to act, and therefore, whatever it did was to show that it was well aware of what is right for their organization and employees and that they were giving warning to other rebels.
There is a high probability that U.S Secretary of Labor won the case filed against Whirlpool. The U.S Secretary of Labor accused the Whirlpool of failing to provide safe and a healthful workplace for their workers. The case could get more powers by the fact that employees received reprimands after asking for their rights of safety work environment. On the contrary, the U.S Secretary of Labor could lose the case because Whirlpool was determined to provide a safe working environment for their workers, demonstrated by the act of installing a horizontal wire mesh guard screen for protecting their workers.
References
Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
