Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 12 - Employment Law I: Employee Rights
Answers to Chapter Questions (p. 543)
1.
a. Of course, under the ancient notion of respondeat superior, it is believed that employers
should bear responsibility because they hired the employees: They, in effect, decided that
b. This can be discussion-based question for the students. Since the students are now updated
2. Abplanalp won. The court held that Com-Co. had no protectable interest in clients Abplanalp
knew personally before he began work for Com-Co. A protectable interest is not recognized when
3.
a. This can be a discussion-based question for students. Many employee-testing experts doubt
b. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit agencies normally need not tell job applicants that
their files are being investigated. However, they must do so if their files hold public
4. The nurses lost. The court held that an employee’s time is “work” subject to the FLSA only if it is
5. The circuit court held that there was no improper search and seizure: The employer had the right
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
6. On appeal, Bechtel won. Guz was an at-will employee. The employer had an absolute right to
7. The court agreed with the RSRs that the RSR job did not meet the exemption requirements. The
8.
a. This can be a discussion-based question for the students. It may be useful to survey the
b. Students can have a discussion on this question. Likely, it has caused a decrease. A
c. This can be a discussion-based question. High unemployment rates and decreases in hiring
9.
a. The incident did not happen at work and Lewis’ attempt to fix the grill was not part of his
b. The defense is weak as the employee was asked by a manager at the employer-sponsored
10. The students could have a discussion based on this question. Consider the situations in which
11. The court rejected Mitchell’s claims when he tried suing the university on the grounds of wrongful
12. No. Federal law prohibits firing an employee for serving on a jury. Even threatening to do so is
illegal.
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
13. Plaintiffs would have to show some evidence of a public policy (e.g., in a statute or the
14. The dancers were employees at Club Orleans rather than independent contractors because the
15.
a. The issue in Vail's case is whether she was abusing her leave or whether Raybestos
b. While the court did not view the surveillance as commendable, it noted that other employers
c. The court rejected the employee’s claims because she was fraudulent in the use of FMLA
16.
a. Public policies at stake include safety and free speech.
b. This is a discussion/opinion-based question for the students. Triple B did not seem to act
c. If employees fear retaliation in exercising their rights, then it may be expected that
Supplementary Materials
I. Scope of Employment
A. McDonald’s
Certain cases where employers have been held liable have heightened the concern that employers have
become dangerously vulnerable to lawsuits for injuries involving employees. For example, in March of
1991 a Portland, Oregon jury found McDonald's to be negligent when a 19-year-old employee was
involved in an automobile accident after work. The employee had worked a 12-hour split shift after
having worked 8 hours the night before. He fell asleep at the wheel after leaving work. His car crossed
the center line and struck the plaintiff's car causing the death of the McDonald's employee and injuring
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
the plaintiff. The jury awarded $400,000 to the plaintiff. The family of the deceased employee is suing
McDonald's for $10 million. The decision is particularly striking because the plaintiff did not allege a
violation of labor law or company policy. Rather, McDonald's was found to be negligent for allowing its
employee to drive after working for an extended period. McDonald's had not compelled the employee to
work the extra hours. However, the supervisor was aware of the employee's work and school schedule.
For its part, McDonald's wonders how it is to identify workers who are too tired to drive. See Amy
Stevens, “Bosses Fret They May Be Liable for Tired Workers on Road Home,” The Wall Street Journal,
April 16, 1991, p. B1.
B. McDonald’s Again
McDonald's was likewise the defendant in a California case attempting to hold the company responsible
for an auto accident involving a McDonald's employee who struck a motorcycle while driving home. The
employee had spent part of the evening with other employees cleaning up the restaurant playground. He
then went to another employee's home for socializing and discussion of the “Spring Blitz” cleanup.
Thereafter, he was involved in the accident. A lower court found for McDonald's. However, an appeals
court sent the case back saying that the lower court had to decide whether the employee had fully
abandoned his “special errand.” The appeals court took note that the five employees gathering after work
and talking about the “Blitz” and the performance of other McDonald's stores was consistent with the
“family” feeling that the fast food chain encourages. See Albert R. Karr, “Labor Letter,” The Wall Street
Journal, January 22, 1991, p. A1.
C. Death on a Company Outing
The following article details yet another expansion of our conventional sense of employer liability.
Jury's Verdict in Raft Death Clouds Outings
By Thomas R. King and John B. Hinge
A federal jury's verdict holding DDB Needham responsible for the drowning death of a retired
employee on a company-sponsored rafting trip will force businesses to reassess the risks of
giving employees and clients a good time.
Late last week, a U.S. District Court jury in Chicago ordered DDB Needham to pay $1.1 million
to the family of James Fasules, one of five men who drowned on a white-water rafting
expedition on Canada's Chilko River in 1987. The jury held the Omnicom Group unit partly
responsible for the accident. Mr. Fasules was held partly responsible himself. The rafting
company, which ran the trip, wasn't held responsible at all.
The jury award sends a clear message that companies can be held responsible for events
they sponsor—even those outings in which the lines between business and social activity are
blurred. Two more lawsuits arising out of the drownings still are to be decided—one of which
concerns the death of a would-be client, Procter & Gamble executive Robert Goldstein.
Lawyers and ad officials quizzed yesterday said the decision will make it nearly impossible for
businesses to justify outings that can in any way be viewed as potentially dangerous. Events
such as wilderness hiking expeditions and rock climbing, for example, will likely be substituted
with tamer outings, such as picnicking and rounds of golf.
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
“We think it's a very important jury decision, not only for this case but for all future cases
where businesses are using marketing tools that are dangerous,” said Stanley M. Chesley, a
Cincinnati attorney for the family of Mr. Goldstein.
The Fasules case is believed to be the first time a federal jury has decided that companies
can be held liable for off-work outings, said Brian Crowe, the attorney for the Fasules family.
But he doesn't expect the ruling to apply to mishaps in milder celebrations.
“The whole message is that if you're going to take someone on a risky venture, you have to let
him know what he's getting involved with,” said Mr. Crowe of the Chicago law firm Henslee
Monek & Henslee. In this instance, Mr. Fasules was a raw rookie at rafting while other
participants were veterans who knew what to expect, the attorney explained.
But DDB Needham's attorney, William Swindal of the Chicago law firm Hinshaw & Culbertson,
maintained the agency's innocence. “Our argument was that there was no duty owed to Mr.
Fasules,” he said. “We did nothing wrong. We didn't run or operate the raft.” He wouldn't
comment on whether the agency plans to appeal the verdict.
If there was any good news for DDB Needham, it was the fact that the jury award fell short of
the $5 million that Mr. Fasules's family had originally sought.
The jury decided on the $1.1 million award after determining Mr. Fasules was partly
responsible. One guide who was aboard the raft testified that he pulled Mr. Fasules to a safe
place after the accident, but that the retired executive apparently left that place and then
drowned.
The Wall Street Journal, December 4, 1990, p. B1. Reprinted by permission of The Wall Street Journal.
Supplemental Cases
I. Capitol City Foods, Inc. V. Superior Court Of Sacramento County, 7 Cal. Rptr.
2d 418 (3d Dist. Cal. 1992) (See Scope of Employment, p. 508)
Syllabus
An employee (Mary T.) of Capitol City Foods, sued Capitol for, among other things, the sexual
harassment committed by a supervisor (Vernon Johnson). The harassment was committed
while both parties were off duty and away from the workplace. The Superior Court of
Sacramento County denied Capitol’s motion for summary judgment on the sexual harassment
claim and Capitol petitioned for a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to grant its summary
judgment motion.
A California appellate court issued the writ directing the Superior Court to grant Capitol’s
motion for summary judgment. The court found that Johnson was not acting within the scope
of his employment when the alleged harassment occurred and pointed to the following: Mary
T. and Johnson were off-duty during the incident, they had agreed to the date, and there was
no evidence that “Johnson used his authority as supervisor to compel Mary’s presence. 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
mere facts that the parties were in Johnson’s office when the date was arranged and that Mary
was wearing her uniform when Johnson picked her up were insufficient to establish that
Johnson was acting within the scope of his employment when the alleged harassment
occurred.
II. Medina V. Graham’s Cowboys, Inc., 827 P. 2d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (See
Negligence, p. 509)
Syllabus
Steven Trujillo assaulted “Rocky” Medina (a patron of Cowboys) in the parking lot of Graham’s
Cowboys, Inc. (Cowboys). Medina sued Cowboys for negligently hiring and supervising
Trujillo. The trial court found for Medina, Cowboys appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
The appellate court sustained the lower court’s decision based on the facts that Trujillo was
employed by Cowboys as a doorman; his job included assisting in maintaining peace in
Cowboys, using force if necessary; Cowboys’ doormen were necessarily in constant contact
with members of the public, most of whom would have been drinking and many of whom might
tend to be argumentative; and Cowboys knew or should have known that Trujillo was unfit to
be employed as a doorman in that he had been involved in several fights at Cowboys and in
its parking lot as a Cowboys patron. The court held that Trujillo was unsuitable to for the
position considering the risk he posed to those with whom he would foreseeably come into
contact during his employment; that his attack on Medina was foreseeable; and that Cowboys
was negligent in the hiring and training of Trujillo, which negligence was the proximate cause
of Medina’s injuries.
Cowboys challenged the ruling on the ground that Trujillo was not on duty on the night of the
assault and therefore the hiring of Trujillo could not have been the proximate cause of
Medina’s injuries. However, there was ample evidence that Trujillo was present on the
premises at Cowboy’s request, that he had come to work and been told by a Cowboys
employee to remain in case he was needed later and that he did remain. Therefore, Trujillo
encountered Medina as a direct result of Trujillo’s employment relationship with Cowboys.
Held for Medina.
III. Miedema v. Dial Corp., 551 N.W. 2d 309 (Iowa 1996) (See Workers’
Compensation, p. 518)
Syllabus
James Miedema filed a workers’ compensation claim after experiencing severe pain in his
lower back while in the restroom at work. The court held that workers’ compensation claims
must satisfy both parts of a two-part analysis in order to be compensable: (1) The injury must
arise in the course of employment, and (2) it must arise out of that employment. Miedema
satisfied the first part in that the injury occurred after he had clocked in for work and while he
was on the work premises. However, he did not meet the second part of the analysis because
there was no causal connection between the conditions of his employment and the injury to
his back. “The injury must not have coincidentally occurred while at work, but must in some
way be caused by or related to the working environment or the conditions of his employment.
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
There is no indication that the design of the restroom or of the toilet Dial provided for its
employees contributed to Miedema’s injury.” Found for Dial Corp.
IV. Dray v. New Market Poultry Products, Inc., 518 S.E. 2d 312 (Va. S. Ct. 1999)
(See Judicial Limitations on At-Will Principles, p. 536)
Syllabus
Plaintiff was a quality control inspector whose job was to assure that no adulterated poultry
products were sold. Two months before her termination, after failing to get management to
enforce proper sanitary rules, she informed the plant’s on-site governmental inspectors of the
problem, who then saw the condition corrected. Her supervisor then told her she would be
fired if she went to the government inspectors again. A week prior to her discharge, she and
other quality control inspectors reported another problem to management. The day of her
discharge, a government inspector required a large quantity of poultry to be reprocessed.
Management believed plaintiff had informed the government inspector and she was
discharged.
Plaintiff claimed her termination was against public policy, relying on the public policy
represented by the Virginia Meat and Poultry Products Inspection Act. The court found that
plaintiff was asking for the court to establish a common law “whistle-blower” retaliatory
discharge claim as an exception to Virginia’s employment at will doctrine. The court refused to
do so. Plaintiff lost.
V. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, 710 P. 2d 1025 (Ariz. S. Ct.
1985) (See Judicial Limitations on At-Will Principles, p. 536)
Syllabus
The plaintiff, an at-will employee who was discharged by the defendant hospital, brought a
number of causes of action under both tort and contract theories alleging that her termination
violated public policy. She contended that she was discharge for refusing to take part in
certain activities (e.g., drinking, spitting, and performing “Moon River” literally) on a camping
trip with her supervisor (who was also female). The trial court dismissed all of the causes of
action on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Wagenseller appealed.
The Arizona Supreme Court identified the relevant issues as: (1) Is an employer’s right to
terminate an at-will employee limited by any rules which, if breached, give rise to a cause of
action for wrongful terminations; and (2) if the “public policy” doctrine or some other doctrine
does form the basis for such an action, how is it determined?
In remanding the case to the trial court, the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “It is difficult to
justify this court’s further adherence to a rule which permits an employer to fire someone for
‘cause morally wrong [.]’ We hold that an employer may fire for good cause or for no cause.
He may not fire for bad cause—that which violates public policy.” Thus, the Arizona Supreme
Court adopted the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine for Arizona.
Selected Bibliography
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
Gil A. Abramson and Elisabeth J. Lyons, “Protection of Employers' Records from Disclosure to
Employees, Government Agencies, and Third Parties,” Labor Law Journal 41, No. 6, June 1990, p.
353.
David A. Allen, “Less Stress, Less Litigation,” Personnel 67, No. 1, January 1990, p. 32.
Steve Bergsman, “Employee Conduct Outside the Workplace,” HR Magazine 36, No. 3, March 1991,
p. 62.
Arthur Caplan, “Genetic Screening May Decide Jobs,” Des Moines Register, November 11, 1990. p.
2C.
Anne Carothers-Kay, “Vulgarity Now Grounds for Job Firing,” Des Moines Register, September 27,
1990, p. 2A.
Shari Caudron, “Angry Employees Bite Back in Court,” Personnel Journal 75, no. 12, Dec. 1996, p. 33.
Laurie P. Cohen and Wade Lambert, “Firms' Right to Fire `At Will' is Bolstered,” The Wall Street
Journal, January 8, 1990, p. B2.
Laurie P. Cohen and Ann Hagedorn, “Sweatshop Conditions Described by Witnesses in
Workplace-Injury Case,” The Wall Street Journal, October 24, 1990, p. B8.
Jeffrey L. Cross, “The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988: Background and Implications,”
Labor Law Journal 40, No. 10, October 1989, p. 663.
Sonni Efron, “Targets Get Bigger in Sweatshop War,” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1990, p. A3.
David Everett and Michael Mehle, “U.S. Finds Thousands Working in Violation of Child Labor Laws,”
Des Moines Register, March 16, 1990, p. 1A.
James Fenton, “Negligent Hiring/Retention Adds to Human Resources Woes,” Personnel Journal 69,
No. 4, April 1990, p. 62.
Gilbert Fuchsberg, “Prominent Psychologists Group Gives Qualified Support to Integrity Tests,” The
Wall Street Journal, March 7, 1991, p. B8.
William Fulmer and Ann Wallace Casey, “Employment at Will: Options for Managers,” Academy of
Management Executive 4, No. 2, 1990, p. 102.
Kirsten Grimsley, “Maternity Benefits Lag in U.S.,” Des Moines Register, February 16, 1998, p. 1A.
Arthur S. Hayes, “Layoffs Take Careful Planning to Avoid Losing the Suits that Are Apt to Follow,” The
Wall Street Journal, November 2, 1990, p. B1.
Tom Juravich, “Here Are the 10 Worst Jobs in America,” Des Moines Register, March 18, 1991, p. 4A.
Mark J. Keppler, “Halting Traffic on the Road to Wrongful Discharge,” Personnel 67, No. 3, March
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
1990, p. 48.
Amy Dockser Marcus, “Courts Uphold Oral Pledges of Lifetime Employment,” The Wall Street Journal,
December 12, 1989, p. B1.
Ellen Neuborne, “Workers in Pain: Employers Up In Arms,” USA Today, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 1B.
OSHA, “Improper Excavation Procedures Contribute to Death of Construction Worker: OSHA Cites
Texas Firm Following Trenching Fatality at Alba, Tex.,”
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.
