Employment law 3 - Assignment Example

In this case, Woolsey signed an employment agreement which contained Employee Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumvention Agreement. In this regard, Woolsey committed himself to not disclose third parties information about MediLink such as trade secrets. Woolsey also committed himself not to work for a competitor of MediLink for a period of three years after termination of Woolsey's employment. Woolsey can be argued to have breached Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumvention Agreement by coping hundreds of MediLink documents on his laptop, which he carried to-and-from his office.

These agreements protect the ideas of the business deal. In addition, the employer spends effort and money training employees, and this should remain privacy especially on the way the company does business. Question B As the HR VP of MediLink, I would advice MediLink to treat the nurses as its employees. This is important because as company employees, the nurses will enjoy all benefits accrued to company employees. This translates to better provision of services to MediLink customers. Some of the benefits of having the nurses as MediLink employees are directly or indirectly connected to incentives employees get from the company.

Some programs such healthcare programs, reward systems, and employment law that protect employees from unfair treatment by the employer would motivate the nurses to continue working for the MediLink and offer quality services to MediLink customers. Conversely, an employer has the right of control. The employer can dictate the means and the manner in which the employee performs the job. In addition, since MediLink customers’ supplies with uniform and equipments and some fees, it means that the customers entrusts all this to MediLink.

Therefore, it would be vital for MediLink to treat nurses as its employees. Shaw v. Zedco Employment law prohibits sexual harassment in a workplace and is considered “to be a form of sexual discrimination, and it is stipulated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act” (M, Paludi, and C, Paludi 6). Carpenter, Newman, and Whatley were alleged to have sexually harassed plaintiff and subjected to a hostile work environment. However, in order to determine the case, it is vital to point out some deliberations and facts concerning the law and the case at hand.

Under Title VII, apart from the employers being required to prevent sexual harassment, they are also supposed to take reasonable care to promptly correct sexual harassment that has occurred (M, Paludi, and C, Paludi 6). In this case, the plaintiff reported the matter to Persons about alleged case of sexual harassment committed by her colleagues. Persons fired Carpenter and held disciplinary conferences with Newman and Whatley. In this regard, it is correct to argue that took the appropriate measures against the accused persons.

In addition, Persons wrote to Plaintiff, urging her to reconsider leaving her job and informing her that ZEDCO had hired a new manager for the Stockton facility and assured her of fair treatment. This means that the employer took reasonable care. In fact, for the employer to be legally responsible for sexual harassment, he must be aware that the harassment occurred and that he failed to take reasonable care. On a different dimension, it is crucial for employees experiencing sexual harassment in workplace, categorically and clearly say no to it.

For example, if the behavior of his or her workmate offends