Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Belanger claimed that qualified privilege did not apply to Swift in this case as the information was not given directly to another employer, but published online in a from where people other than the particular perspective employers he was interviewing with could access it (Arterton, 2008). The argument was made that a more accurate description of the reason for termination would occur if Swift was in direct contact with the other employers rather than simply having the vague description which cast Belanger in bad light. The website in question, known as DACS, is regularly used for trucking agencies during the hiring process and upon accepting a job at Swift, Belanger agreed to allow the company to provide the website with his employment history information, and not only are their options to contact employers about employee records, but employees have the ability to add comments to these records. (Arterton, 2008). Considering that Swift’s statement of why Belanger was fired was true and that Swift had permission from him to publish such information, along with Belanger’s opportunity to comment on the record in question and the ready ability of potential employers to contact Swift for more information make Belanger’s case against Swift’s qualified privilege difficult to
Swift, while truthful, through the vagueness of their comment on Belanger’s termination harmed his chances of employment and could have provided a clearer statement as to the specific reason he was fired. By giving the circumstances of the accident Swift could allow employers the ability to determine if the accident was preventable. A different system of determining the fault of an accident could also be a wise decision on Swift’s part, rather than assuming guilt unless proven otherwise. While Swift does appear to be at some level of fault, the fact that they ask employee permission to post on the website and do so to increase highway safety shows that they do have ethical standards. Yet, Belanger had alternatives to suing, as he could have obtained a copy of Swift’s record of the incident to allow employers to look at the situation for
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
The main issue with regards to the applicability of S1322(4)(a) to the appointment of Helen was the meaning of the word contravention.
Facts: In the above case, employee Joel Hernandez was tested positive for cocaine. With the fear of being dismissed from his job, he acknowledged that his behaviour violated petitioner Raytheon Company's workplace conduct rules, and obviously, was pressed to quit his job. Also, the reason for the employee resignation was also based on the notion that had he not resigned it would be petitioner who would eventually fired him from his work. After more than two years of rehabilitation, petitioner applied to be re-employed alleging on his application that the following had previously hired him. In his application, he also attached letters coming from, his pastor about his active church participation and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counsellor about his regular visit and attendance at meetings and his immediate recovery. When a HR employee of petitioner reviewed Hernandez application, she then rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has a policy against rehiring employees who are terminated for workplace wrongdoing. According to the HR employee, she did not know that that employee was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. As a result to this development, Hernandez instituted a suit and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), averring that his rights has been violated in consonant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a consequence, gave a go signal to the respondent and issued a right-to-sue letter and the right to file an ADA action. Following this, respondent established an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) action, alleging that petitioner did not act on his application for the reason that he has a record of drug addition and/or because he was known before as being a drug user. On the other hand, petitioner responded by filing a summary judgement motion. This resulted to respondent's argumentation in the alternative that in the case that petitioner sought for a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it is still sufficient to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) because of that policy's disparate impact.
uses logos strongly by providing not only his viewpoint from a business perspective, but also a conceding viewpoint that works in his favor. Edmond references work that involves children, and claims that “the hiring process” of such employees is the most ethically sound time to discover if the prospective hires engage in “inappropriate social media communication with minors” (Edmond Jr. 133). Typically, in the hiring process, a background check is done on the prospective employee. However, a background check won’t necessarily reveal if they commit undesirable behaviors in their private lives. Therefore, Edmond strengthens his logos immensely by referencing a particular scenario where his claim works. Edmond also addresses individuals who believe that having access to an employee’s Facebook is a “horrible invasion of privacy” by stating that sharing personal information on Facebook is similar to “shouting your private business” in public (Edmond Jr. 134). In his comparison, Edmond reveals to his audience that sharing on Facebook can have harsh side-effects, as would shouting in the street. Since Edmond is able to reference a contingent argument and still get his point across, his logos receives another boost. Logos acts as an essential part in Edmond’s essay, and works efficiently to prove his
The Jaffee-Redmond ruling heavily impacted how all organizations and firms deal with staff members’ rights. Today, the legal human resource environment requires that all key organizational professionals know and understand the laws affected by this case. Prospective job candidates who are well-versed in these laws and similar issues can outmaneuver less knowledgeable candidates. Training in current privacy laws are a valuable asset in several settings, such as:
This harassment occurred in the form of comments, physical touching and verbal propositions that were considered severe and pervasive. As an outcome, the appeals court upheld the jury’s verdict that the employer allowed employees to be sexually harassed in violation of Title VII. MHR was required to adopt a new anti-harassment policy and punitive damages were mandated and reduced from the original amount of $100,000 to the amount of $50,000 because the employer had less than 100
The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his former employer, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was liable under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by deliberately discriminating against him under both the disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses.
Kimberly Ellerth worked as salesperson in of the divisions of Burlington Industries for fifteen months. She quitted her job and alleged that she had been subject of constant sexual harassment by one of his supervisors. During her employed she did not report about sexual harassment to her supervisors and after quitting the job she suit against Burlington for the constructive discharge in violation of Title VII. District court found that the behavior of supervisor created the hostile work environment. The defendants claim was they never knew about the situation and was not reported by the employee about the issue so that they could act upon it. The court of appeals reversed imposing vicarious liability on Burlington.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Breach in individual rights is evident in the case of ex-Lockheed manager Kenneth Branch who unlawfully gained access to “25000 documents containing proprietary technical and cost information of Lockheed”. This concerns Lockheed’s copyright and privacy issue.
While Daniel Ellsberg’s story is certainly one worthy of a blockbuster documentary, it is not the only case to have made strides for our First Amendment rights. In a similarly unprecedented case, the Supreme Court deliberated on a public employee’s constitutional right to publicly criticize his employer. In Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision against the school board, who had fired Mr. Pickering for writing a critical letter that was “detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the schools of the district” (Pickering v. Board of Education).
Specific Purpose Statement: To inform the audience about how Aaron Swartz was silenced when trying to make access to private databases public.