The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Bell, is requesting from the Commission, to award compensation for his injury under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Mr. Bell, will be referred to as Bell, filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant, Safe Place Children’s Home, which will be referred to as the Safe Place. Bell subsequently submitted a claim to the Safe Place human resources department and was denied. Bell’s injury is compensable because Safe Place mandated Bell’s physical presence and participation in a football game at an annual picnic which benefited Safe Place by socializing, boosting morale, and team building. An injury arises out of employment when the employee is expressly mandated at the recreational and social event and the …show more content…
Barbour Boat Works, 352 S.E.2d 690, 694 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987). The first element has already been addressed because both parties agree that the injury suffered was an accident. (Bell Aff. Ex. 6.) Therefore, in order for an injury to be compensable a plaintiff must prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. I. BELL SUFFERED AN INJURY WHILE AT SAFE PLACE ANNUAL PICNIC THAT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE SAFE PLACE BENIFITED FROM THE EVENT BY ATTENDING THE PICNIC, BOOSTING MORALE AND TEAM BUILDING AND THERE WAS A CAUSAL AND THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE EMPLOYEMENT WHICH WAS A RISK OF THE EMPLOYMENT. A. Bell’s injury arose out of employment because Safe Place benefitted from the event where Mr. Bell was expected to be and the purpose of the football game was to boost morale in addition to team building with the caregivers whom he …show more content…
Holliday v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co., 775 S.E.2d 885, 895 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). Additionally, the employer did not clearly inform the attendees that only their attendance, rather than physical participation in the recreational event, was mandatory. Id. Testimony by employer said attendance was mandated and followed by taking attendance. Id. Additionally, the employer testified the employee was mandated to participated by expressly stating to employees “wanted people to participate.” Id. The court reasoned since the employee was required to attend the event by their employer, the courts held the totality of the circumstances surrounding the purpose of and expectations surrounding the participation therein points in favor a determination for the employee’s injury arose from his employment.
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of
Plaintiff Debra Denise Gregg filed a sexual harassment suit for violations of Title VII, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against Hay-Adams Hotel. She sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for damages resulting from emotional distress and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff Anthony Gregg brought the claim for damages resulting from loss of companionship and consortium in the amount of $1,000,000. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s accounts lacked consortium and that the facts did not support her claims for emotional distress and punitive damage.
US Supreme Court in 1927, in the case Buck v. Bell put a legal example that states can sterilize public institutions inmates (Lombardo, 2009). The argument of the court was that epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and imbecility are hereditary and it was important to the inmates from passing these defects to other generations. May 2nd 1927, the court ordered Buck Carrie, whom it referred as a feebleminded daughter to get sterilization following the 1924 Virginia act of Eugenical Sterilization. Carrie had a feebleminded daughter and her mother was feebleminded too. The case determined that obligatory sterilization laws did not infringe the due process given by the US constitution 14th amendment. It established the legal mandate and bolstered US eugenics movement for sterilizing over 60,000 citizens in over thirty states. Most of these practices ended in 1970s (Reilly, 1991).
In the case Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), Lechmere was a large retail store located in a plaza that also contained several smaller satellite stores. In this case the union filed an unfair labor practice against Lechmere for violating Section 7 of the NLRA for not allowing its non-employee organizers to distribute literature on the companies parking lot. There was not sufficient area for on public property for these organizers to be able to speak with employees. In this case the NLRB ruled in favor of the union stating that “The right to distribute is not absolute, but must be accommodated to the circumstances, where it is impossible or unreasonably difficult for a union to distribute organizational literature to employees entirely off the employer’s premises, distribution on a nonworking area, such as the parking lot and the walkways between the parking lot and the gate, may be warranted.”
Question Presented: Under Californian workers’ compensation law can a worker receive workers’ compensation and when the injury was self-inflicted, and when their participation in the activity was voluntary, and when the activity took place after the work day and when the worker did not want to say no to their supervisor and when they were anxious to get on their boss’s good side and while during the activity business was discussed and when the company built the court for a director of sales, and when the director believed that inviting employees to play was a great way to get to know their employees, to increase morale and camaraderie at the company but when at the activity the employee’s injury was self-inflicted, and when their participation of in the activity was voluntary, and when the activity took place after the work day.
This statement of position letter represents the position of Ace Glass Company (ACE), the respondent in the above listed case. Jim Bowersmithes (“claimant”), asserts that ACE terminated his employment (1) Based on his age; (2) Treated unequally compared to women. These charges are without merit, lack evidence to support his allegations of discrimination in any form and should be dismissed since (1) The claimant, has missed a total of 16 workdays for various reasons, including one no show/no call. (2) The claimant has missed three mandatory safety meetings during this time; (3) The claimant’s personnel file contains two written reprimands about his attendance, including failure to attend three mandatory safety meetings, the latest one states
Many employers have been baffled as they attempt to sort through the overlapping obligations created when a sick or injured worker's medical condition triggers the different rights and responsibilities under new federal laws. If businesses want to avoid costly lawsuits from disgruntled employees it is essential to understand their responsibilities under the laws. Employers must make a tw...
In 1927, there was an infamous Supreme Court case in Virginia that would be controversial and affect the lives of the mentally ill for many years. This was known as the case, Buck v Bell, which ruled in the favor of the sterilization of Carrie Buck, who was deemed “mentally unfit” to reproduce (Caldwell 1). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ruled that it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment and quotes that “three generations of imbeciles are enough” (Wright 1). This court case led to an improper decision for Carrie Buck due to a law that negatively impacted the entire United States because it limited the rights of mentally challenged citizens in history for a large part of the remainder of the twentieth century.
I believe $110,000 is a fair compensation, it’s a 10% higher than the median salary for an MBA that graduated from Harvard in the Health related services industry. He will be working directly with the CEO, so right from the start he will have more responsibilities and impact than other managers that start at the company, I believe this deserves that extra 10%. I also believe, that when you are determining your own compensation, it’s better to put more focus on the compensations attached to results, that shows your commitment to the company and that you are not interested in the easy money.
Unfortunately, employers and their insurance companies will try to deny the legitimacy of the claims when the employee wasn't on work property. There are plenty of circumstances where there are exceptions to the rules laid out by law makers. It's important that if you've been injured off-the-clock, but you were performing duties sanctioned by your employer that you're compensated for your injury.
Workplace injuries are primarily responsible for a large number of workers being absent at work and disability. The occurrence of workplace injury varies from the occupation and the industry of the worker. There are many risk factors that are associated with workplace injuries such as age, experience, shift work, consumption of alcohol, fatigue etc. (Swaen et al. 2002).
Imagine, if you can, an income drop from thirty thousand a year to less than ten thousand a year. This is calls for a colossal change in the way a person lives. What to sacrifice and what to consider as essential, becomes the main point of decision-making. The catalyst of this injury grew from pushing the body past the limit of physical readiness. This injury started a journey that is still in progress. Decisions, even small ones can bring about unexpected results. Look at how some decisions affected others and the results that came from them.
Employees, and managers have responsibilities when an employee is injured while working. When an employee is injured it is up to that employee to report the incident to the manager that is on duty at the time of the injury. Each organization has different policies on the exact handling of their employees and it is the responsibility of the managers to know what to do when an injury occurs. Each state has a set of regulations that empl...
During the nineteenth and early twentieth century if a worker was a victim of workplace accident there was no compensation or requirement of the employer to support rehabilitation. Employers were not responsible for injured workers or accidents that happened in the workplace. The main legal doctrine of Assumption of Risk governed workplace hazards, which required workers to assume and accept all the risks affiliated with their occupation (Share, 2012). In the 1900 's many diseases and injuries resulted due to unsafe or hazardous working condition. "The Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital reported in 1889 that many workers were being hurt on the job and condemned the state of working conditions in several industries" (CPHA, 2012). However, the federal government at the time did not act on the results of the commission report. In 1914, the province of Ontario introduced legislation where, "workers would be eligible for guaranteed no-fault benefits from a system that was wholly funded by employers. In exchange, employers were freed from legal liability" (CPHA, 2012). This was the first time the idea came up that injured employees should be compensated no matter who was at fault for the accident. This was the sign of the beginnings of change, but perspectives on health and safety still held employees responsible and accountable for all injuries and