Final - Signature Assessment Business Law
The past few decades have seen an expansion in employment law with the courts widening the scope of employment suits that are actionable. This implies that while dealing with employment cases, courts can use applicable torts in addition to basic employment laws such as The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This essay will identify common employment law issues and the policies and torts that could be used. This will be done by analyzing two legal cases and the applicable laws governing the torts applicable in the cases.
Court cases
In Kent V. Keystone Human Services, the plaintiff filed a case against the employer for wrongful termination of employment. The plaintiff…show more content… However, the courts use common laws, employment torts, practices and doctrines to handle wrongful dismissal cases. The wrongful dismissal in the Kent V. Keystone Human Services is supported by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that forbids the discrimination against disabled employees in hiring and firing, basic pay, benefits and workplace activities. If the plaintiff in the case could prove that the employer dismissed her for disability that interfered with her ability to take up a new role, then the claim would have been viable. The tort is also supported by the employment at will doctrine, which according to Muhl (2001), gives an employer the right to terminate employment without giving a reason; this doctrine is not, however, applicable when there is an inferred agreement or agreement, a public policy or a contract of good faith.
The public policy doctrine has been used in various wrongful dismissal cases filed in the U.S. courts. For instance, in Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, it was decided that public policy includes actions that could be injurious to the public and such actions might include perjury. In Palmateer v.International Harvester Company, the court held that public policy touches on the social rights and responsibilities of…show more content… Keystone Human Services case, the court ruled that there was no public policy that gave Kent remedy consideration. According to the public policy tort, an employee could seek remedy for a wrongful dismissal if the reason for dismissal involved refusal by the employee to commit a crime, if he or she performed a statutory duty, if he or she was exercising a legal right, or if a statutory protection is violated. In the Kent V. Keystone Human Services, the court would have ruled in favor of the plaintiff only if the employer did violate the public policies in terminating her employment. Had the plaintiff claimed that the employer dismissed her violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court could probably have ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. In Myrtle Abbey v. Wendy Giffords, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress is not valid as the actions of the accused did not fit the description of being dangerous and despicable. In addition, the plaintiff could not prove that the emotional distress that she might have suffered resulted from the extreme conduct of her employer. If the actions of the defendant had been found to be extreme and outrageous, the court would have ruled against the
