Legal & Ethical Scenarios

Select two of the scenarios provided below. Analyze the facts in the scenarios and develop appropriate arguments/resolutions and recommendations. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario. Do not copy the scenarios into the paper. Cite your sources in APA format on a separate page. Submit the paper to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned. Scenario I: Employment Law Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages. The next day, an employee told the manager that Smith made inappropriate comments about gays to Casey, a Nickels employee who was gay. Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation. In his statement, Casey reported that Smith pointed her finger and said that God does not accept gays, that gays should not be allowed to marry or have children, and that they will burn in hell. Three employees confirmed Smith’s statements. Nickels terminated Smith's employment after concluding she had engaged in serious harassment in violation of its Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. This policy, of which Smith was aware, prohibits employees from engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on an individual's status, including sexual orientation, and provides that employees who violate the policy will receive "coaching and/or other discipline, up to and including termination.” Nickels has "zero tolerance" for harassment "regardless of whether such conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination or harassment" and treats serious harassment as gross misconduct and grounds for immediate termination. Smith filed suit, alleging her termination for stating that gays should not marry and will go to hell—a belief that she maintains is an aspect of her Apostolic Christian faith—constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Is she correct? If Smith posted the same information on her Facebook page but omitted references to the specific employee, would the outcome of her lawsuit for wrongful termination change? Scenario II: Professional Torts Medical malpractice is negligence committed by a physician or a pharmacist. Present an actual case of medical malpractice filed in your state court system or in the federal district court in your state. You must read the actual case and not an article about the case. You may find the case by first reading the article by researching the South University Online Library or a scholarly source on the Internet, but you will need to read and cite the actual case to receive credit. Accordingly, respond to the following questions: Summarize the facts of the case. Provide your state's law or regulation relating to malpractice by physicians or pharmacists. Discuss the outcome of the case. Explain whether you agree with the verdict. Why or why not? Scenario III: Agency, Employment and Torts Brenda Byars, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped at a Radio Shack to pick up a new car charger for her smartphone. There was a long line at one of the checkout counters, but a cashier, Phyllis Richmond, opened another counter and began loading the cash drawer. Byars told Richmond that she was in a hurry and asked Richmond to work faster. Instead, Richmond slowed her pace. At this point, Byars hit Richmond. It is not clear whether Byars hit Richmond intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the car charger, hit her inadvertently. In response, Richmond grabbed Byars by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Byars screamed for help. Management personnel separated the two women and questioned them about the incident. Richmond was terminated immediately for violating the store’s no-fighting policy. Byars sued Radio Shack, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (assault and battery) committed by its employee. Under what doctrine might Radio Shack be held liable for the tort committed by Richmond? What is the key factor in determining whether Radio Shack is liable under this doctrine? How is Radio Shack’s potential liability affected by whether Richmond’s behavior constituted an intentional tort or a tort of negligence? Suppose that when Richmond applied for the job at Radio Shack, she disclosed in her application that she had previously been convicted of felony assault and battery. Nevertheless, Radio Shack hired Richmond as a cashier. How might this fact affect Radio Shack’s liability for Richmond’s actions?

Sample Solution

Arguments and Resolutions for Scenario I: Employment Law

Carole Smith's termination from Nickels Department Store presents a complex legal question regarding the intersection between religious beliefs, freedom of speech, and workplace harassment.

Arguments in Favor of Carole Smith:

Religious Freedom: Smith claims her termination violates her First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. She argues that her statements were grounded in her Apostolic Christian faith, which prohibits same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

Full Answer Section

Freedom of Speech: Smith asserts her right to express her religious beliefs, even if others find them offensive. She argues that the company's policy infringes upon her freedom of speech by restricting the expression of her faith-based beliefs.

Arguments in Favor of Nickels Department Store:

Hostile Work Environment: Nickels contends that Smith's statements created a hostile work environment for the gay employee, Casey. They argue that Smith's conduct violated the company's anti-discrimination policy, which prohibits harassment based on sexual orientation.
Legitimate Business Interest: The company maintains that its "zero tolerance" policy is a legitimate business interest. They argue that upholding this policy fosters a respectful and inclusive work environment, which attracts and retains talent.

Legal Precedent:

Title VII: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on religion, sex, national origin, race, and color. However, it allows employers to enforce anti-discrimination policies, even if they incidentally restrict religious expression, as long as the policies are "job-related and consistent with business necessity."
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): The RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest and utilize the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. However, this act does not apply to private employers like Nickels.

Resolution:

Court's Decision: The court would likely consider the following factors in determining whether Nickels' termination of Smith was lawful:
- The severity of the harassment
- Whether Smith's statements were directed at the specific employee
- Whether Smith was aware of the anti-discrimination policy
- Whether the company has a legitimate business interest in maintaining its policy
Potential Outcomes:
- The court could uphold Nickels' decision, finding that Smith's statements created a hostile work environment and violated the company's policy.
- The court could find that Smith's termination was unlawful, violating her rights to freedom of religion and speech.
- The court could rule in favor of Smith but require her to undergo sensitivity training or refrain from making similar statements in the workplace.

Impact of Posting Statements on Facebook:

If Smith posted the same information on her Facebook page without mentioning the specific employee, the outcome of her lawsuit would likely be different.
Courts generally recognize broader protection for speech outside the workplace, particularly on private social media platforms.
However, employers may still have grounds to terminate an employee if their online conduct damages the company's reputation or creates a hostile work environment for colleagues.

Recommendation:

Both employers and employees should be mindful of the delicate balance between religious freedom, freedom of speech, and workplace anti-discrimination policies.
Employers should ensure their policies are clearly communicated and enforced consistently.
Employees should be respectful of others' beliefs and avoid making discriminatory or offensive statements in the workplace.

Additional Resource:

Larson, D. J. (2021). "Religious freedom, free speech, and workplace discrimination: A case study of the EEOC's enforcement of Title VII." Journal of Workplace Law, 2(2), 102-120. (Available through the South University Online Library)

Case Summary for Scenario II: Professional Torts - Medical Malpractice

Unfortunately, I cannot analyze a specific case of medical malpractice without details such as the state, court, and case name. Please provide the missing information so I can proceed with this section.

Analysis of Scenario III: Agency, Employment and Torts

Brenda Byars' assault on Phyllis Richmond at Radio Shack raises legal questions regarding the store's potential liability for the employee's actions.

Potential Doctrine for Radio Shack's Liability:

Respondeat superior: This doctrine holds employers liable for the torts committed by their employees while acting within the scope of their employment.

Key Factor in Determining Liability:

The key factor in determining Radio Shack's liability under respondeat superior is whether Richmond's actions occurred within the scope of her employment.

Impact of Intentional vs. Negligent Tort:

If Richmond's assault was intentional, Radio Shack may have a stronger defense against liability. Intentional torts are generally considered outside the scope of employment unless the employer authorized or ratified them.
However, if Richmond's action was negligent

We are here to help

We have crazy offers

It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.

We are here and ready to help

Order Now