Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
Internet Exercise and Supplements
Answers to Internet Exercise (p. 543)
Based on information, the following are the answers as of the time of this writing:
1. OSHA's budget for Fiscal Year 2007 is $486.9 million. The agency has a sta" of 2,150,
including 1,100 inspectors.
2. Call the nearest OSHA Area O(ce, )le a complaint online through the OSHA Workers'
Page.
3. OSHA offers three: the Alliance Program (which enables employers, unions, trade and
professional groups, and educational institutions to collaborate to prevent injuries and illnesses in
the workplace); the Strategic Partnership Program (which allows employers with varied
backgrounds, experience and records to share creative ideas and resources); and the Voluntary
Protection Program (which is designed to recognize workplaces with exemplary safety and health
programs).
Student Project
1. Find a website illustrating a topic discussed in Chapter 12. Identify the employment law to which it
relates and discuss it in the context of the chapter materials.
Supplemental Web Addresses
http://workplace.samhsa.gov (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration site
covering drug testing and drugs in the workplace)
Answers
Answers to ‘Introduction’ Questions (p. 503)
1. The court ruled that Rodrigues’ privacy rights may have been violated. The court explained that
the employer’s legitimate business interest in obtaining an employee’s private information has to
2. This can be discussion-based question for the students. Students might be asked to draft such a
policy as an in-class exercise: what would be the consequences of violation? How would violators
be detected? Would violators be given an opportunity to quit smoking before being terminated?
What types of support might be offered by the employer to employees seeking to quit smoking?
Answers to ‘Scope of Employment’ Questions (p. 508)
1.
12-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
a. Jean’s claim was on respondeat superior and that Hy-Vee did not have control over its
b. Jean holds genuine issues claiming respondeat superior and premises liability. The courts
2.
a. The central issue was whether Ahern was acting in the scope of his employment in traveling
b. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that even if the meeting were
3. A finding of employer liability does not excuse the employee from his/her personal liability. The
following questions ordinarily determine whether the harm occurred in the scope of employment:
Answers to ‘A Side Order of Pistol-Whipping?’ Questions (p. 509)
1. Students’ answers may vary. Students can view the following link and come up with their own
2. KFC initially had a policy which involved the prohibition of guns and other weapons at the
workplace. Also, only at the management level did KFC conduct background checks and not for
Answers to ‘Student Interns’ Questions (p. 514)
12-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
1. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s summary judgment for the employer on the issue of
2. The person is justified in asking such a question. The employee must first check if he or she falls
under the category covered by the FLSA for receiving overtime payment. The employee is entitled
Answer to ‘No Joke’ Question (p. 519)
1. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the horseplay arose out of employment, and the case was
Answer to ‘“BYOD” to Work’ Question (p. 527)
1. Students may have a discussion based on this question. If an employer requires to erase a phone
for data-protection purposes, he should give the employee an advance notice so that he can back
Answer to ‘Legalizing Marijuana... in the Workplace?’ Question (p. 531)
1. Employer’s in Colorado and Washington will not be able to conduct drug-testing policies and
practices because of the legalization of marijuana. The legalizing of it can result in the increase of
Answer to ‘Only Funny until Someone Quits: The Firing Contest’ Question (p.
538)
12-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
1. Yes, Shelsky should be viewed as a terminated employee because she testified that the contest
Answers to ‘Practicing Ethics: Hearing the Whistle Blow?’ Questions (p. 541)
1. This can be a discussion-based question for the students. Students may feel that it was ethically
2. Students can have a discussion based on this question. Although agreement was amended to
3. This can be a discussion-based question. Lamson had a duty not to engage in unlawful trade
4. This can be discussion question. The plaintiff himself admitted in testimony that his superiors did
5. The employer won the wrongful termination lawsuit. The evidence did not support Lamson’s claim
Cases and Answers
Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc., 496 N.W. 2d 419 (Minn. App. 1993) (p. 510)
Syllabus
Yunker, trustee for the estate of Kathleen Nesser, sued Honeywell (her employer) under the
theories of negligent hiring, retention and supervision with respect to Honeywell’s employment
of Randy Landin. Landin worked for Honeywell from 1977-79 and 1984-88. From 1979-84,
Landin was in prison for the strangulation death of a Honeywell co-employee. Nesser met
Landin in 1988 through their employment at Honeywell. After a time, Landin began threatening
and harassing Nesser both at work and at home. Nesser asked for help from her supervisor
and a transfer to another facility. Shortly thereafter she found a death threat scratched on her
locker door. Landin never appeared back at work after that event. Within three weeks, Landin
killed Nesser in her driveway with a shotgun.
Honeywell moved for summary judgment on the theory that even if it failed to exercise
reasonable care in hiring and supervision of Landin, it owed no legal duty to Nesser and
therefore could not be held civilly liable for her death. The trial court agreed with Honeywell
and Yunker appealed.
12-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
The appellate court found that Honeywell could not be liable for negligent supervision, which is
a claim that derives from the doctrine of respondeat superior (which involves vicarious liability
on the part of the employer) because Landin was not acting within the scope of his
employment when he shot Nesser. That is, he was not on Honeywell’s premises nor using any
of Honeywell’s property.
On the other hand, negligent hiring and retention argue that the employer is directly (not
vicariously) liable for its own acts in hiring or retaining an employee. With regard to negligent
hiring, the appellate court found Honeywell not liable because that theory requires that, at the
time of hiring, the employer place an employee with known propensities in a position which
because of the circumstances of the employment posed a threat of injury to others. The court
found that Landin’s custodial duties did not of themselves pose a threat to others.
Finally, with regard to the negligent retention claim, the appellate court found that Honeywell
was not entitled to summary judgment and the claim should be tried before a jury. Negligent
retention focuses on whether an employer takes appropriate action when put on notice that an
employee poses a threat. There was evidence that Landin was becoming increasingly more
violent at work at that the violence was in part directed at Nesser. To prevail at trial, Yunker will
have to prove that Honeywell breached its duty and that that breach was the proximate cause
of Nesser’s death.
Answers to ‘Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc.’ Questions (p. 512)
1. Negligent hiring and retention requires assessment of actual carelessness (exposing the public to
2. Landin was neither on Honeywell's premises nor using Honeywell's chattels when he shot and
3. Landin's job as a maintenance worker did not entail his exposure to the general public and
4. Sufficient evidence was presented to show that Honeywell owed a legal duty to Nesser arising out
5.
a. Weimerskirch sued the bowling alley under a respondeat superior theory as well as negligent
b. The appellate court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the
12-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois 240 S.W.3d 220 (Tenn. S.Ct.
2007) (p. 520)
Syllabus
Kristina Wait, worked as Senior Director of Health Initiative and Strategic Planning for the American
Cancer Society ("ACS"). Because of the lack of office space at its Nashville, Tennessee facilities, the
ACS allowed the plaintiff to work from her East Nashville home and furnished Wait’s home office with
necessary office equipment, including a printer, a facsimile machine, a dedicated business telephone
line, and a budget to purchase office supplies. In all respects, the plaintiff's home office functioned as
her work place, with supervisor and co-workers attending meetings there. However, Wait’s work did
not require her to open her house to the public. On September 3, 2004, Wait allowed Sawyers, a
social acquaintance, to enter her home, where he brutally assaulted her causing severe injuries. Wait
sought workers’ compensation for her injuries. While the Court found that her injuries were suffered in
the course of employment, the Court also found that her injuries did not arise out of her employment:
thus, workers’ compensation was properly denied.
Answers to ‘Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois’ (p. 524)
1.
a. An injury arises “out of” if a causal connection exists between the employment conditions
b. No—for example, injuries during a lunch break may meet the requirements of being “in the
c. The court found that the assault had no inherent connection with her employment.
2. The court found that Wait’s employment did not expose her to a street hazard, nor was she
3. For Fernandez. "Work related intoxication is a hazard of the employment that follows an employee
12-6
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
4.
a. The Supreme Court refused to find an exception to the going and coming rule. Smyth chose
b. This can be discussion-based question for the students. Presumably, the family’s case would
5. The widow received workers’ compensation benefits. The Michigan court of appeals said
alcoholism is a disease and workers are entitled to compensation if their occupational experience
Koeppel v. Speirs 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 25 (Ct.App. Iowa 2010) (unpubd op.) (p.
527)
Syllabus
[Sara] Koeppel and Deanna Miller were the only employees of Speirs, an insurance agent. On
December 27, 2005, Koeppel discovered a digital surveillance camera hidden inside the office
bathroom. After contacting the Waterloo Police Department, a search warrant was obtained and
officers located the camera in the bathroom. When confronted by police, Speirs produced the receiver
and monitor for the camera from a locked drawer in his desk. Speirs admitted he had placed it in the
bathroom because he suspected one of his employees was abusing drugs while at work and was
concerned she would embezzle money.
Koeppel [sued] Speirs, alleging... invasion of privacy... Speirs then filed a motion for summary
judgment... claiming there was no actual intrusion upon Koeppel’s privacy because there is no
evidence he viewed her in the restroom. Koeppel [argued] Speirs’s act of placing the camera in the
bathroom with the intent to view her was an invasion of her privacy. She also argued there was
sufficient evidence for the jury to find the camera was operational. Finding no evidence Speirs viewed
Koeppel in the bathroom, the court dismissed the claim. On November 25, 2008, Koeppel appealed.
The district court ruling was reversed, granting summary judgment in favour of Speirs.
Answers to ‘Koeppel v. Speirs’ Questions (p. 529)
1. Speirs claimed that there was no actual intrusion upon Koeppel’s privacy because there is no
evidence he viewed her in the restroom. She then argued that Speirs’s act of placing the camera
12-7
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
2.
a. Since the camera did not work during the normal business hours (day) when the two
b. In this case, the planting of a camera in the employees’ office did not essentially lead to the
3. Students’ answers may vary. They may decide to agree or disagree with the following statements.
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s suppression of evidence gained from the warrantless
Lloyd v. Drake University, 686 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa S.Ct. 2004) (p. 538)
Syllabus
Lloyd, white security guard employed by Drake University used force and pepper spray against a black
Drake University football player when he thought the football player was assaulting a white female
student. Lloyd was subsequently fired, and filed a wrongful termination claim asserting his firing was
against public policy. The trial court ruled that Lloyd’s termination was lawful. The public policy
asserted by Lloyd was vague and not defined by constitutional or statutory provision.
Answers to ‘Lloyd v. Drake University’ Questions (p. 540)
1.
a. Lloyd was an at-will employee, and he was unable to establish a public policy exception that
would have allowed him to win his wrongful discharge claim. Lloyd could not establish a
b. Because the public policy Lloyd asserted was “far too generalized,” “not clearly defined,” and
c. This question can be discussed by the students. The district court pointed to worries about
12-8
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
2. This can be a discussion-based question for the students. The reasons Drake cited for the
3.
a. Students’ answers may vary. When Schuster’s employer was passing unwanted sexual
b. One cause of action was based on Derocili sexually harassing her at the workplace. Another
4. When Sheridan sued Touchstone, the jury was in a deadlock situation on this claim and a mistrial
was stated. A directed verdict was then moved by Touchstone stating that it had not terminated
5. The district court found for Huegerich in the amount of $24,000 on the wrongful discharge claim
6. The court denied defendants’ motion of summary judgment because the plaintiff gave sufficient
evidence by way of depositions. Since the plaintiff inability to lactate was proven by the alleged
12-9
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
12-10
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in
any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
