Labor and Employment Law - Essay Example

Research paper In July a black employee from South Africa called Jack secured recruitment as a chief security officer in a California glossary store. During the second week at his new workstation, Jack saw a white female customer stealing some items from the store. He raised an alarm to a colleague named Christ to assist in stopping the women from the act. Notably, the woman shoplifter was in the company of a male. Arguably, Jack was at a unique position in the theft case since he was often in constant confrontations with the store manager was always in favor of other whites who accused him of encroaching into their job category. Therefore, this could not have come at the right time. Jack caught the shoplifter and asked her to accompany him to the security area for the necessary interrogations. Interestingly, as Jack escorted the female shoplifter to the security area, her male counterpart yelled and swore that the women did not deserve such treatment. On their way to the security office, Jack instructed the man who was in the company of the shoplifter to remain outside the security office as his presence in the interrogations was of secondary importance. Oblivious of the implications, the partner forced himself into the security room while at the same time yelling, swearing, and pointing accusing fingers at Jack’s face. He also referred to Jack as a “Nigga” meaning a black man. In a reactionary mood, Jack responded to the situation by hitting the customer in his stomach. This commotion forced Chris to alert the police, and both customers were apprehended. However, pursuant to the Grocery policies, employee code of conduct prohibits aggression and violence within the premises. Moreover, the policy forbids fights and any forms of physical confrontations at the workplace. Taking these policy provisions into consideration, Jack had gone through an elaborate training exposing him to get a proper grip of the company policy on workplace violence. This comprehensive training given to Jack offers the impression that he was liable to any action that violates the company policy provisions. In light of this stance, Jack was fired due to abuse of the nonviolence policy. Furthermore, he had a moral obligation to shape the errant customer in the spirit of the company policy stipulations. Apart from the dismissal, Jack was sued for the unfair portrayal of his nationality. This paper is an expository analysis of three case laws including; Ali vs. Roggers, Zeinali vs. Raytheon Co., and Rashidan vs. Geissberger . According to the United States of America Ninth Circuit court, the case between Ali vs. Roggers, was wrongly framed. The complainant filed a case against the defendant who was the human resource director. On the other hand, the human resource manager asked the ship captain to sack him since he was of Yemeni origin. Furthermore, the human resource manager complained that his religion and the Yemeni origin violated his union’s collective bargain, and constitutional rights. However, the case was dismissed since Ali sued the human resource director rather than the United States of America. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds of deficiency of jurisdiction. There is a recognizable similarity between Jacks case mentioned earlier in the document to the case of Ali v Rogers. The two cases have complications on the issues of nationality. However, Jack’s case bases more ideas on employees rather than states. In Ali vs. Rogers, the public vessels Act, and Admiralty Act should have initiated a case against the United States of America rather than the human resource manager. Therefore, both cases got dismissed because of insufficient jurisdiction (Ali v Rogers, 2015). In the Zeinali v Rytheon business case, the court of appeal reversed the judgment made by the district court (The recorder, 2011). The court maintained federal precedent in excluding judicial evaluation of security authorization. From this perspective, the verdict had no interest on employees, therefore, discriminated against a private employer. When comparing the case with Jack’s security issue Zeaianl vs. Rytheon developed critical security questions for employees. In Jacks case, for example, the employer does not take security of employees into consideration. Consequently, the relationship between employees, customers, and employers are at a compromise. Therefore, solving the legal issues in the context of employment requires the analysis of stare decisis to develop a solution to the issues pertaining to employment. Legal issues in the context of employment If I were to represent an aggrieved employee, my preferred course of decision and action would be pegged on the fact that customer has no legal authority to abuse or insult employees. In as much as ethical considerations require uttermost respect for clients the same is necessary for employees. Additionally, the manager has no legal authority to sack an employee who acts on self-defense from an aggressive customer. Most importantly, the customer has no legal protection to abuse and insult any employee. In representing the management, I would defend it based on the fact that employees implement the policies of a company or organization. Finally, the management has the authority to formulate sound rules and regulations protecting the functions and operations of an organization (Bisels Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Law Source 124). It, therefore, is essential to ensure that these policies are not one sided but rather double edged to prevent victimization. Legal and practical analysis The potential legal liability of an employee is dependent on the verdict that he or she receives on the case. Additionally, the liability is also subject to the jurisdiction of the case in question. Drawing from Ali vs. Rogers, it is relevant to argue that the importance of authority in Jack’s case depends on the decisions of the employer. However, Jack’s employer made a decision that negatively portrayed his personality due to his nationality and power issues. The legal liability of employees based on Jacks case was compensation and assistance; nonetheless, the reverse was the case. For instance, the grocery has a legal mandate to assist employees who undergo severe abusive and retrogressive treatments while on duty. In addition, employees need subjection to punitive measures according to the situation that have prompted their actions. The threat of punishment, as is in Jacks case, had deterrent effect and encouraged the incorporation of preventive measures in discouraging bullying behavior and misdemeanor (Cihon, Castagnera & Cihon, 2010). Interestingly, the employer sidelined all these concerns. The case of employees’ misconduct or any form of contravention of rights needs a comprehensive redress in a court of law. Conceivably, this is because the court process is the absolute determinant of justice. Depending on the nature of the cases developed, the employee will be prosecuted based on compensation and assistance to the employee. Moreover, the charges against the employee are subject to the need for deterrence and the ignorance of the employee’s welfare (Sjåfjell, 78). Most importantly, this should relate to existing policies and protection laws. The management practices in improving the situation in employment conditions in the future need to include the implementation of relevant policies and laws that protect employees from harassment of both the clients and the management. Focusing on the case of Ali v Rogers, the case would have been favorable if proper policies would have been put in place to protect foreign employees from harassment (Cihon, Castagnera & Cihon, 2010). Rashidan vs. Geissberger Dalia Rashidan Mohamed was an Egyptian dentist enrolled in a dentistry program for international students at the University of the Pacific. This was part of her desire to obtain credentials in her dentist career from the American university. Rashdan experienced discrimination form her supervisors during the program in which they referred to her as TW, meaning Third world. Dr. Geissberger within the earshot of other faculty students, referred to Rashdan’s clinical wok as a third word dentistry. Because of the actions, she got embarrassed and confronted Geissberger to explain to him relating her failed crown seating procedure to the supervisor’s and not her. The faculty recommended her remediation of restorative dentistry and removable prosthodontics. While practicing her dentistry as recommended by the faculty, the evaluators consistently complained about her inability to practice dentistry in America. This case presents aspects of nationality discrimination in healthcare provision at the University’s faculty. The case filed by Rashdan had the interest of expressing her discrimination within the university’s dentistry faculty due to her nationality. It could have been factual that Rashdan fell short of the requirements of medical practice but the case provides that she performed well in other coursework. Considering her performance, it was wrong for the faculty to conclude that her medical practice was third world. The interest of the faculty supervisors and evaluators could have been purely guided by the institutional policies as defended by the respondent. By referring to Rashdan’s practice as third world, the faculty demonstrated nationality discrimination as safeguarded by TitleV of the American Constitution. Despite being the victim, the complainant had the legal burden to prove that her treatment within the faculty discriminate was due to nationality and not ability. Since students from other countries had succeeded in the same faculty as Rashdan’s and others were allowed to graduate. Evidently, she lacked a premise to prove her discrimination. Nevertheless, when she expressed her dislike for the reference as a third world, the faculty had the obligation to avoid such derogatory remarks, which was not the case with Dr. Geissberger. Professional standards is a priority in medical practice but the imposition of this requirement becomes flawed when issues of a practitioners origin is used as a ridicule for their practice. Stall cop v Kaiser Foundation Hospitals provides that for a statement to be considered derogatory, it must be excessive and shared by several people in the top management. Though Stallcop v Kaiser Foundation hospitals provides a different point of view as to portray that Dr. Geissberger used the word “Third World” in reference to the procedures undertaken by Rashdan, the words have some aspects of nationality discrimination, but not to the threshold recognized by the American Supreme law. This insufficiency of proof of the case by the plaintiff led to her loss of the case. Take home message The loopholes presented by the American constitution have upheld discrimination, misbehavior and violation of the constitution. Most importantly, it has protected the violators while victims continue to survive in the harsh side of life. Many employers and customers alike have cashed on the opportunity to commit their ill-intentioned acts and escape. Despite being victims, many people have failed to lift the burden of proof further worsening the situations. It is for this reason that the senate and relevant authorities need to follow up these case and make viable recommendation that ensure equality and respect among managers, customers as well as employees. Works Cited Bisels Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Lawsource: The Collected Labor and Employment Federal and State Statutes, State Regulations, Cases, and Commentary. Philadelphia: G.T. Bisel Co, 1999. Print. United states Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit No. 12-16305 D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00634-SBA Neal, Alan C. Social Dialogue, Industrial Relations and Labour Law. The Hague [u.a.: Kluwer Law International, 2002. Print. Reitz, Anders E. Labor and Employment Law in the New Eu Member and Candidate States. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2007. Print. Sjåfjell, Beate. Towards a Sustainable European Company Law: A Normative Analysis of the Objectives of Eu Law, with the Takeover Directive As a Test Case. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2009. Print. Read More