Disputes Between the Company and Its Employees

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CASE STUDY
Table of Contents
Scenario 1: Courts and ADR...........................................................................................................1
Issue:............................................................................................................................................1
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................1
Application:.................................................................................................................................1
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................2
Scenario 2: Constitutional Rights....................................................................................................2
Issue:............................................................................................................................................2
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................2
Application:.................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................3
Scenario 3: Torts..............................................................................................................................3
Issue:............................................................................................................................................3
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................3
Application:.................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................4
Scenario 7: Negligence....................................................................................................................5
Issue:............................................................................................................................................5
Rule:.............................................................................................................................................5

2CASE STUDY
Application:.................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion:..................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES:...............................................................................................................................8

3CASE STUDY
Scenario 1: Courts and ADR
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Watson is wrongfully terminated.
Rule:
Disputes between the company and its employees may arise on several grounds. Because
of the cost of litigation and the time involved due to procedures and management, it is more
common for the employment contract to include the provision for alternate dispute resolution
systems including mediation as dispute resolution system.
The employees are although protected by law against the termination by the employers at
unlawful or wrongful terms (Perritt 2019). These terms include the following:
 Implied Contract
 Public policy
 Good faith and fair dealing
In Li vs. Canberra Industries [2012] 134 Conn App 448, it was held by the court that when
the employee was fired because she refused to make unethical calls as ordered by her boss, such
termination was unlawful.
Application:
Applying the provisions for wrongful termination of an employee, it can be explained
that the employee was terminated on the ground of breach of contract which had specifically
mentioned that the office properties must be used for the official purpose only. Applying the

4CASE STUDY
terms for wrongful termination of an employee, it can be explained that the employee was
terminated on the lawful ground where the court would imply that employee owed duty of care
towards the official property and use it for official purpose only and hence, the termination
cannot be held as unlawful.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Watson was not wrongfully terminated.
Scenario 2: Constitutional Rights
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Officer Crespo violated any of Watson’s Constitutional
Rights.
Rule:
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution explains that it is the right of
the people to live freely in their person, residence, and other areas including unreasonable
searches and seizures. It is important for the Government to issue warrants before conducting
any search or seizure. In United States vs. Jacobsen [1992] 503 US 540, it was held by the court
that the Fourth Amendment protects the people from unlawful seizures and searches. In Mapp vs.
Ohio [1961] 367 US 643, it was held by the Court that a valid warrant is a pre-requisite for
conducting any search or seizure in one’s person or property.
There are exceptions of exigent circumstances where the searches and seizures may be
conducted without warrant as constitutional based on probable cause. The probable cause may be

5CASE STUDY
assessed with the danger at the site, knowledge of the police with respect to police being in trail,
possibility of destructibility of warrant, degree of urgency and so on.
In Missouri vs. McNeely [2013] 569 US 141, it was held by the court that in general,
police must obtain warrant before searching or seizing a drunken person to blood test because the
natural metabolism does not per se establish the urgency for blood test. However, in Birchfield
vs. North Dakota [2016] 579 US, it was held by the court that a warrantless breathy test is not
unconstitutional.
Application:
Applying Birchfield vs. North Dakota, it can be explained that the warrantless breath test
as requested by Crespo was not unconstitutional. Refusal of breath test attracted exigent
circumstances where the search led to various discoveries related to drunk driving. Therefore, it
can be explained that Officer Crespo acted in exigent circumstances leading to searches and
seizures in Watson’s car.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Officer Crespo did not violate any of Watson’s Constitutional Rights.
Scenario 3: Torts
Issue:
The issue in the case was whether Fitch commit any tort.

6CASE STUDY
Rule:
Fraud is the intentional deception resulting in the unfair benefits or deprive the victim of
a legal right. In other words, fraud is the civil wrong in which the victim is deprived of his or her
legal right due to the unfair or misrepresentation being committed by the party against the victim
(Smallwood 2017). There are three elements of fraud:
 A material fact has been misrepresented in order to obtain benefit by influencing a person
to act or omit an act based on misrepresentation.
 The person acting or omitting an act relies upon the misrepresentation.
 The victim suffers injury as a result from the act or omission of the act due to
misrepresentation.
The establishment of fraud as a claim can only be established as a particular claim in the
pleadings and can only be proved by preponderance of the evidence.
Application:
In the given scenario, applying the elements of fraud, it can be explained that:
 Fitch misrepresented the material fact regarding the theft committed by Watson by
convincing Tech Data that Watson stole time from the company and that he was involved
in drug-addiction.
 Tech Data relied upon the misrepresentation being made by Fitch and did not rehire
Watson.
 Watson suffered injury related to unemployment or better employment opportunities,
however, Watson did not have the knowledge of re-employment opportunity.

7CASE STUDY
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Fitch committed fraud against Watson.
Scenario 7: Negligence
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Heather’s parents can claim for wrongful death of
Heather.
The issue in the case is whether employee can claim for negligence against manager and
security guard.
Rule:
Wrongful Death Claims are those which are brought by the plaintiff against the defendant
who has caused someone’s death, through negligence or through an act of intentional action. In
such cases, the claim is filed by the estates or the relatives or close peers of the deceased. The
onus of proof for the wrongful death claims is generally based on the preponderance of the
evidence, which shall be proved beyond the reasonable doubt of the Court. However, in Tate vs.
Canonica [1960] 180 Cal. App. 2d 898, it was held by the court that wrongful death claim may
also be established on the intentional infliction of emotional distress which led the deceased to
commit suicide.
Following are the elements for the establishment of claim for wrongful death claims
(Ireland 2015):

8CASE STUDY
 Negligence: it means that the human being has dies due to the negligence of the party
which may have been caused by drunk driving or any other hazard which was known to
the defendant at the time of the death of the deceased.
 Breach of duty: the next element establishes that the party who has been charged for
wrongful death owed duty of care towards the deceased and the same was breached due
to the carelessness or the negligence of the party.
 Causation: it is an important element which states that the party must establish that the
death of the deceased was the outcome of the negligence of the defendant.
 Damages: this is the cost of injury or loss being incurred by the survivors of the deceased
due to the death of the deceased. It may include medical expenses, funeral expenses, loss
of protection, pain and suffering and so on.
Application:
Applying the elements of wrongful death claim, it can be explained that:
 Heather died due to the negligence of the manager of the cafeteria because she had
warned him about the risk of life and has requested for help to which he had denied.
Thus, his negligence to foresee the harm led to her death.
 Security Guard owed the duty to check Carl for any weapons before he entered the
cafeteria after the fight and hence, it can be explained that the guard breached the duty of
care.
 The cause of the death of Heather is negligence of the manager to assess or foresee the
risk when Carl had warned and shouted that he would kill Heather. Further, when
Heather asked for help, he negligently refused and let the accident happen. Further, the
security guard breached his duty to check every person before entering the cafeteria and

9CASE STUDY
hence, his negligence led to her death. Thus, the death of Heather is due to negligence of
manager and security guard.
 The parents of Heather may establish the claim for pain and suffering including the
funeral charges and other compensatory claims arising due to wrongful death of their
daughter.
The employee of the cafeteria was shot in the course of his employment due to the negligence of
manager and security guard and can claim compensation from them for the medical charges and
injury being inflicted due to their negligence.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Heather parents can clam wrongful death suit against the
manager and security guard of the cafeteria.
It can be concluded that employee can sue manager and security guard for claim against
their negligence.

10CASE STUDY
REFERENCES:
Birchfield vs. North Dakota [2016] 579 US
Ireland, T. R. (2015). Damage Standards for Wrongful Death/Survival Actions: Loss to
Survivors, Loss to the Estate, Loss of Accumulations to an Estate, and Investment
Accumulation. J. Legal Econ., 22, 5.
Li vs. Canberra Industries [2012] 134 Conn App 448
Mapp vs. Ohio [1961] 367 US 643
Missouri vs. McNeely [2013] 569 US 141
Perritt Jr, H. H. (2019). Employee dismissal law and practice. Aspen Publishers.
Smallwood-Cook, C. (2017). Tort.
Tate vs. Canonica [1960] 180 Cal. App. 2d 898
United States vs. Jacobsen [1992] 503 US 540