Agency and Employment Relationships

This discussion explores the legal aspects of agency and employment relationships. It discusses the issue of discrimination in job qualifications and the liability of employers for the actions of their employees. It also examines the potential negligence claims in a workplace incident. Overall, it provides insights into the complexities of workplace relationships and legal responsibilities.

Running Head: AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
Topic-Agency and employment relationships
Student name
University name
Author notes

2AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
DISCUSSION
Part 1
A sphere of utter dilemma whether to choose bona fide job qualifications or support own job
discrimination mirage
No, CARDWARE did not have adequate and genuine BFOQs (Bona Fide Occupational
Job Qualifications) in its job ad for the position of a sales person. If there is any age and gender
restriction it should have been mentioned in the job ad (Bagenstos, 2013). Though US Civil
Rights Laws prohibit any kind of discrimination in employment but BFOQ doctrine allows an
organization to discriminate on the basis of sex, religious and nationality in some cases where
diversification dimensions are a part of bona-fide occupational qualifications (Llewellyn, 2017).
The job ad did not mention any such discriminatory aspects and moreover have emphasised on
the type of an equal opportunity employer. In these circumstances, the job specifications
mentioned are mainly based on experience and qualities of a sales person like enthusiastic,
youthful and athletic. There was no mention of any age preference or gender preferences.
Youthful was mentioned but it has noting to do with age. Also, following marketing trends of
other high-end clothing stores CARDWARE prefers to have slender and young employees in its
sales force to keep up with the company image of being sporty. But the mention of the equal
opportunity has widened the discrimination issues manifold (Taylor et al., 2013). And so, in this
regard, the job application by Petunia Rotunda, the middle-aged women having 5 years of retail
experience in a similar sales company is no doubt any issue. Instead Noah, a college graduate in
marketing having no retail sales experience applied for the post and was selected for the post as
well. It is claimed that Petunia was neglected based on her age and Noah was selected because of
his qualifications and future company plans. CARDWARE however, denied these and

3AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
mentioned that age has nothing to do with applicant’s selection procedure. In this regard, it could
be said that discrimination against people is neither ethically nor legally supported in US and
workplaces are also independent of any kind of discrimination (Boone James et al., 2013). A
number of civil rights are there that prohibit any kind of workplace discrimination based on
gender, age, religion or origin. However, the bona-fide doctrine provides some support to
discrimination because some jobs are there that require different and specified characteristic
roles (Boxall, 2013). For example, in sales job it is assumed that men will be most suitable for
the job role in comparison to women and for this the bona-fide doctrine based on sex, age,
religion and national origin is formulated to reduce workplace conflicts and controversies. Also,
the bona-fide need to be in line with the essence or the organizational mission (Byron, 2013).
Here if any legal suit is to be cased, then the aggrieved party here, Petunia, need to be a member
of the protected class, and she also has to support her claim by the help of Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. In this circumstance, CARDWARE need to defend themselves by providing a
non-discriminatory reason of their not selecting Petunia. In this case, it is not specified that
Petunia has crossed 40 years or not, because the Age discrimination and employment act of 1967
prohibits any kind of discrimination against people of above 40 years of age, in employment. If
she has crossed 40 years then no Bona-fide can help the company from legal lawsuit if Petunia
claimed one. But as far the genuineness of the job ad is concerned it should have specified about
age preferences if any, in the very online job advertisement.
Part 2
Legal aspects of the case
If Petunia brings a lawsuit case of negligence against CARDWARE and the Sporty One
then CARDWARE is to be liable or responsible for Noah’s unethical behavior. Since, Noah has

4AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
already joined as an employee in the Sporty One he is having employee status in the company.
The company is responsible for his work, the incident of Noah grabbing Petunia happened
during the work hours at CARDWARE. Under this circumstance, the Liability for agent’s
neglect theory is applicable, where CARDWARE is responsible for Noah’s behavior towards
Petunia. The doctrine of respondeat superior “imposes of vicarious liability/ indirect liability on
the employer for torts committed by an employee in the course or scope of employment” (Cavico
& Mujtaba, 2016). Keeping this doctrine in mind, Noah was in his employment scope when he
committed the misdeed. Though, it is also true that Noah was not influenced by the employer and
he was only psychologically disturbed after continuous harassment by Petunia and thereafter in
frustration and anger has started to thrash her. But the Employer’s liability for employees’ bad
acts might cause CARDWARE to be held responsible for Noah’s misdeed.
CARDWARE should have taken precautions at the very first starting of the argument and
it is clear that Petunia has no conflict of interest with Noah but she is furious with the selection
process in CARDWARE which is based on gender discrimination (Llewellyn, 2017). Noah is
just a cause. She actually wanted to disturb the work mode of the Sporty One. Petunia should
have been banned from the store at the very first argument start-point with Noah. She should not
have been given the chance of harassing Noah to the extent that Noah crosses his tolerance limits
and indulge in cat fights with Petunia. And the ultimate results would not be that fatal as in the
case.
Under this circumstance of the case, it is likely that Hetty Whitestone’s estate might
claim negligence or may held CARDWARE responsible for Hetty’s death. As per the case,
Petunia crashed into Hetty when she was thrashed by Noah, so the ultimate results if linked it
could be said that the death was caused due to Noah’s pursuit. But such change is not weighted

5AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
under legal considerations and as per law negligence is based upon the notion that there is
“existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause
in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damage;
and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability” (Llewellyn, 2017).
In this regard, the clothing store already exercises reasonable care and there is no mention of any
design fault like slip opportunities and falling scope. The case of Hetty’s death is only linked to
Noah’s pursuit and is not for any failure of exercising reasonable care by CARDWARE. If it is
shown or proved that the racks which Petunia hit were precariously arranged then there may be
scope of any legal case. Such evidences are not mentioned in the case. So, in this respect, Hetty’s
estate will not be able to produce any case. But yes, if it is proved that Noah is a likely liability
as an employee in CARDWARE then there may be chances of a legal case (Byron, 2013).

6AGENCY AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
References
Bagenstos, S. R. (2013). Employment Law and Social Equality. Mich. L. Rev., 112, 225.
Boone James, J., McKechnie, S., Swanberg, J., & Besen, E. (2013). Exploring the workplace
impact of intentional/unintentional age discrimination. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 28(7/8), 907-927.
Boxall, P. (2013). Mutuality in the management of human resources: assessing the quality of
alignment in employment relationships. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 3-
17.
Byron, K. (2013). Natural law and bona fide discrimination: The evolving understanding of sex,
gender, and transgender identity in employment. Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev., 6, 343.
Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2016). The bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)
defense in employment discrimination: A narrow and limited justification
exception. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 15.
Llewellyn, K. (2017). Jurisprudence: realism in theory and practice. 1st ed. Routledge: New
York.
Taylor, P., Mcloughlin, C., Meyer, D., & Brooke, E. (2013). Everyday discrimination in the
workplace, job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing: age differences and moderating
variables. Ageing & Society, 33(7), 1105-1138.