Paul Cronan and New England Telephone Company Case Analysis
Legal Case Analysis
Facts:
? Paul Cronan was a long-term New England Telephone Company (NET) employee (1973 - 1986), assigned at South Boston.
? Paul was diagnosed with AIDS Related Complex (ARC) in 1985.
? Paul informed his supervisor about ARC when asked about his third request to leave work for a medical appointment (1985).
? Paul had a poor attendance history. His tardiness and medical appointments concerned his supervision.
? Paul was granted NET sickness benefits in June 1985.
? Disparaging comments about Paul and AIDS were observed in NET restrooms (summer 1985).
? Paul obtained medical permission to return to work with NET, but his requests for transfer way from the South Boston dispatch center were not processed by his new supervisor (August 1885).
? NET issues new AIDS policy (September 1985).
? Paul is hospitalized (September 1985), and receives a memo from NET offering to return him to his previous position with reasonable accommodation for limitations.
? Paul files suit against NET for ?privacy law violations? and ?discrimination? using Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (December 1985).
? NET tried to move the case to Federal court and failed (January 1986). The court determined that neither federal law nor union contracts preempted Massachusetts state laws on discrimination and privacy.
? NET informs Paul his illness benefits have run out and place him on long-term disability (June 1986).
? Paul and NET settle out of court, including allowing Paul to return to work at Needham facility (October 1886).
? AIDS awareness training provided to NET personnel at Needham by medical AIDS specialists before Paul comes back to work (October 1986).
? On Paul?s first day back at NET Needham, he finds a hostile work environment and IBEW Local 2222 workers file a grievance over safety concerns related to exposure to AIDS (October 1986).
? On Paul?s second day back to work, 29 of 39 employees refused to enter the NET Needham facility and walked off the job. Several of these employees made statements regarding their fear AIDS and discomfort around Cronan (October 1986).
Critical Legal Issues:
? Was Paul Cronan discriminated against on the basis of a handicap, AIDS?
? Was AIDS/ARC a handicap?
? ...
... middle of paper ...
... a large sum of money to go away (the easy way out).
? NET could have accommodated Paul immediately and used his services doing something that prevented or limited his contact with employees or other people. This may have been a breech of union contract.
Judgement and Rationale:
? Once errors were made and the damage was done, NET was best served by taking the actions they did in settling out of court with Paul Cronan. This minimized the extent of financial loss, and prevented further tarnishing their corporate image. In this case it was NETs responsibility to do the right thing from the beginning.
? NET would have lost the legal battle in court. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19732 clearly prohibits discrimination in employment against qualified individuals with a disability. Like the ADA, a qualified individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment which ?substantially limits? one or more major life activities, (2) has a record of such impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. In this case the court would likely have determined that AIDS and the perception of AIDS qualified it as a disability.
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
A single aspect of McClelland’s experience illustrates the issue within warehouse operations. The workers are forced to work in a fast-paced, highly stressful environment with minimal to no social relief to break up the day. Long jaunts and short breaks lead to maximum levels of worker discomfort, but they have no choice but to keep going if they wish to keep their jobs. Always being on the move is unhealthy. The operators of the warehouse obviously disregard the health of their workers for the sake of saving a few
Bourgeois notified of the decision to detain client for Grave Disability and was in agreement with client being placed for further psychiatric care. Dr. Bourgeois requested the name and contact information for help in facilitating client being transferred to an LPS designated facility, due to being unable to place him on multiple occasions. This writer contacted Supervisor Robin Boscarelli regarding this issue. It was decided that a member of the Treatment Team will be reaching out to the Hospital Unit Clerk, Gina later this morning. Dr. Bourgeois was in agreement with this plan. Client's Clinic to be notified via email of this Crisis
(Varley, 1987, p. 15) Schall should measure the cooperation among her employees by direct observation, and feedback from the employees themselves. Schall’s second short term goal for DJJ should be to improve the quality of DJJ’s staff. This progress can be measured by staff evaluations that measure the quality and quantity DJJ’s employees work. If employees are not producing, she has no choice but to replace them with more qualified candidates. Schall’s third short term goal for DJJ should be to improve the conditions at Spofford. Although Schall is hesitant to get too involved in Spofford, she needs to make short term improvements, until the decision is made on what exactly to do with Spofford. (Varley, 1987, p. 14) Schall can measure her progress by measuring the overall safety conditions of the facility and the overall quality of treatment being provided by the
...motion. The court correctly held that there were insufficient allegations to state a First Amendment claims against Defendant. Furthermore, the court accurately concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that relevant aspects of Defendant’s search engine were equivalent of a traditional public forum. The Court decided properly when dismissing Plaintiff’s defamation allegations because these did not alleged malice. The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1991), United States v. E. I.du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956), Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the interpretation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, Cal. Civil Code §47 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and the decision in New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp.2d 1090 (2004) were crucial to properly decide on the case.
On 5/6/15, PACT occupational therapist received a message from the person’s served brother requesting a return call. The message stated that they have a "big problem with the person served, he passed out and his heart stopped. The paramedics and everyone are working on him." Upon calling the person’s served brother, he reported that the paramedics have been making attempts to "revive" the person served for approximately 30 minutes, though "can't get a heartbeat." Occupational Therapist then spoke with Kevin Kelty, paramedic supervisor at Robert Wood Johnson of Somerset. Kevin informed staff of their efforts and reported that the person’s status was not going to change. PACT staff were informed that they were going to "pronounce him here." In
Cox, A., Bok, D. C., Gorman, R. A., & Finkin, M. W. (2011). Labor law cases and materials. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Thompson Reuters/Foundation Press.
Did Dr. Frame read the Mr. Frost’s medical history? Did he reviewed his notes before treating the patient? Mr. Frost was transferred to the hospital for a specific reason; to receive kidney transfer from his twin brother James. So how could the attending physician not be aware of his medical history? And if Dr. Frost had failed to do this, what about the nurse? When the patient was transferred to Greater works hospital for treatment of renal disease, did the previous facility not give any report about Dr. Frost medical condition? And going back to the nurse who administered the feeding solution through the Mr. Frost catheter implant, was the nurse aware of the fact that it was a catheter implant? If yes, why did the nurse failed to inform Dr. Frost that it is a catheter implant not a feeding tube? Was the nurse so ignorant to realized such an error? Is the nurse knowledgeable about the patient’s medical history? And what about Even greater works hospital (EGWH)? When Mr. Frost was transferred to the hospital, why did the hospital delayed treatment till the next day? Did Greater works hospital notified EGWH that the patient was having an emergency? Mr. Frost was supposed to be transferred to EGWH intensive care unit (ICU) per his symptoms. Dr. Frame would have emphasized on this. While at EGWH, it was reported that Mr. Frost was less responsive, weak and unable to
Mariner, W. K., Annas, G. J., & Glantz, L. H. (2005). Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your
Spink, Gemma. "AIDS." AVERTing HIV and AIDS. 23 Dec 2009. Web. 11 Jan 2010. .
A combination of overcrowding, state budget cuts, and indifference resulted in inhumane conditions. Geraldo recounts the shocking smell upon first entering the institutions, it “smelled of disease, death, filth, urine and feces” he calls it ''the defining moment of ...
...host Lands Many Factory Workers in Hospital." Dawn News. Dawn Media Group, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
They gave reason to P4P, that they were understood about the efficiency, but the productivity decreasing was not employees’ fault. Beside, there was an indication that the defendant would diversify the business, instead of paying employees’ separation pay.
In the year before the more-vigilant safety program was implemented, the firm had 19 reportable workers ' compensafion claims. Only seven claims were filed the next year, three were filed in the second year and none were filed in the third year (Figure 1). The contractor 's safety and human resources director attributes the drop in claims to less drug use on the job, driven by use of on-site drug testing. "Testing became less of a hassle," the director says. "Before, it was an issue of having to have a restroom available, messing around with a testing cup and dealing with disposal items." This contractor administers pre-employment, post-accident and reasonable-suspicion