New Corp Legal Encounters
- Submitted by: dls1580
- Views: 798
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 01/20/2011 08:56 PM
- Pages: 5
- Report this Essay
Newcorp Legal Encounters
Legal Encounter 1
In regards to the incidents between Pat Grey and Newcorp, the agency relationship was created on basis of Express Authority in which Pat was hired by agreement to act on behalf of the business (Jennings 2001). By no means necessary was acting on behalf of the business has anything to do with Pat’s decision to express his freedom of speech at the local school board meeting, in which he believed that school sports fund should be divided equally between all athletic programs. Pat firmly believes this event led to his termination. Newcorp is strongly supported by the “freedom to fire at will” statement that was signed by all Newcorp employees but Pat may be protected under the Public Policy exception. (Jennings 2001) states:
“In a second group of employment-at-will cases, the courts have afforded protection to those employees called whistle-blowers who report illegal conduct and to those who refuse to participate in conduct that is illegal or that violates public policy. In Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. (Case 18.8), a court deals with the issue of an
employer firing an employee who has taken action in an area not directly related to
his employment.
Pat was terminated under terms of “things weren’t working out” which falls under the Freedom to Fire at Will statement. Pat firmly believes his termination was in violation of Newcorp’s Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance Corrective Action Plan, in which his performance wasn’t grounds for termination. Newcorp has the rights to fire at will. Jennings 2001) states that “recent cases have placed some restriction on this employer freedom to hire and fire at will, as courts have been giving employees/agents the benefits of the reliance.” In Dillon v. Champion Jog-bra, Inc. (vt.2002) the court ruled in favor of Jog-bra because of its statement “Champion Jogbra offers no employment contracts nor does it guarantee any minimum length of employment. Champion Jog-bra...
Legal Encounter 1
In regards to the incidents between Pat Grey and Newcorp, the agency relationship was created on basis of Express Authority in which Pat was hired by agreement to act on behalf of the business (Jennings 2001). By no means necessary was acting on behalf of the business has anything to do with Pat’s decision to express his freedom of speech at the local school board meeting, in which he believed that school sports fund should be divided equally between all athletic programs. Pat firmly believes this event led to his termination. Newcorp is strongly supported by the “freedom to fire at will” statement that was signed by all Newcorp employees but Pat may be protected under the Public Policy exception. (Jennings 2001) states:
“In a second group of employment-at-will cases, the courts have afforded protection to those employees called whistle-blowers who report illegal conduct and to those who refuse to participate in conduct that is illegal or that violates public policy. In Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. (Case 18.8), a court deals with the issue of an
employer firing an employee who has taken action in an area not directly related to
his employment.
Pat was terminated under terms of “things weren’t working out” which falls under the Freedom to Fire at Will statement. Pat firmly believes his termination was in violation of Newcorp’s Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance Corrective Action Plan, in which his performance wasn’t grounds for termination. Newcorp has the rights to fire at will. Jennings 2001) states that “recent cases have placed some restriction on this employer freedom to hire and fire at will, as courts have been giving employees/agents the benefits of the reliance.” In Dillon v. Champion Jog-bra, Inc. (vt.2002) the court ruled in favor of Jog-bra because of its statement “Champion Jogbra offers no employment contracts nor does it guarantee any minimum length of employment. Champion Jog-bra...