Upgrade to remove ads
MGMT 448 Cases
Terms in this set (19)
Sheets v Teddy's Frosted Foods
Employee was quality control management. Employee alleges he was dismissed in retaliation for insisting to his employer that they comply with the requirements of FDA. Supreme Court held employee was hired at will and employee had sufficiently alleged cause of action for wrongful discharge from employment
Palmateer v International Harveseter
Employee alleged he was discharged for supplying information to local law enforcement authorities regarding a coworker's criminal activities and for offering to assist in the investigation and trial of worker if necessary. Court agreed and found in favor of employee.
Gus v Bechtel National
Employee alleged employer breached an implied contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and age discrimination. Supreme court held that 1) employer had absolute right to eliminate employee's work unit and to transfer unit's responsibilities to another company entity and 2) employee did not have independent claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and 3) employee failed to show he was victim of age discrimination
Gibson v Overnite Transportation
Former employee alleges defamation against former employer for former manager's negative comments about the employee to employee's new prospective employer. The court found for the employee; appellate court affirmed that 1) punitive damages award was not excessive and 2) express malice was the standard with respect to the statute that gives employer conditional privilege to make statements about former employee and stating presumption of good faith could be rebutted only upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that employer knowingly provided false information in the reference or employer made reference maliciously
Exxon Mobil v Hines
Employer was fired because he was using the employer education match program to fund scholarships for his own children. Hines sued for defamation and age discrimination. Human resources communicated to the rest of the company that this was not allowed. Because the HR function did not communicate specific details to anyone who did not need to know, the court determined this was not defamatory. However, Hines won damages.
Brimage v City of Boston
Plaintiff was a teen city employee who was raped and threatened by supervisor. Employer did not do a background check of supervisor, so plaintiff sued for negligent hiring. Courts held that defendant officials had statutory immunity for negligent supervision, but was liable for negligent hiring and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Bryan v Livigni
Employee assaulted and injured a child after the child was found urinating on a wall of the store. Coworkers knew of past violence from this manager. Courts found employer's retention of employee was negligent and willful and wanton misconduct
Harrison v Tallahassee Furniture
Employer did not conduct (a generally used) interview, criminal background check, or require written application for employee. Employee brutally assaulted a customer and had numerous convictions nor had the necessary qualifications for his position. Employer was liable for negligent hiring.
Randi v Muroc
Administrator was hired on recommendations made by the school district and employees, and sexually assaulted the plaintiff, a student. Administrator had prior history of molestation. Court found for plaintiff on the basis of fraud and negligent misrepresentation because defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
French v United Parcel Service
Employee had some coworkers at his apartment. One of his coworkers below him became excessively intoxicated and injured himself in his home. Supervisor asked to report the claim at work and plaintiff failed to do so until two days later. Employee sued employer on invasion of privacy; reckless infliction of emotional distress, violation of MA civil rights act, and wrongful constructive discharge. Employer won case.
O'Connor v Ortega
Government employee had desk searched when he was on paid administrative leave. Employee sued for violation of fourth amendment rights because there was no warrant. Supreme Court ruled that respondent had reasonable expectation of privacy that was subject to Fourth Amendment protection; but there was also a genuine issue as to inception and scope of search.
Organon v Hepler
Employee signed statement of policy that prohibited him from any outside business activity, but the employee was terminated when employer learned he was selling for another company while traveling on the employer's dime. Courts held for the employer and found that the agreement was neither oppressive or illegal and the employee breached implied duty of loyalty to employer.
Smyth v Pillsbury
Employee sent inappropriate email to boss over company email system and was terminated. Employee sued, stating privacy rights were violated. Court found privacy rights were not violated because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Estrada v FedEx Ground Package System
Employer claimed workers were employees, not contractors because of the contracts that they had signed stating that they were independent contractors. Workers claimed they were employees because they received benefits; was controlled by the employer, wore the uniforms, and worked full time. Courts found workers to be considered as employees.
National Labor Relations Board v Friendly Cab Company
Employer stated its workers were subcontractors so therefore they could not unionize. Courts found they were in fact employees and are allowed to unionize.
Industrial Union Dept v American Petroleum Institute
Challenged regulating carcinogens by setting exposure limit to carcinogens. Court held that the Secretary of Labor applied the act inappropriately and that he must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) decide whether to issue the most protective standard or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits.
Kaspar Wire Works v Secretary of Labor
Employer did not report workplace injuries and said they did not know they had to report the injuries. Injuries were serious and included finger amputations, broken bones, and severe burns. Courts ruled that the employer violated OSHA and penalized them.
Ballard v Chicago Park District
Former employee requested leave so she could provide physical and psychological care to terminally ill parent while parent was traveling away from home. After returning home, the employee was terminated. The employee sued for wrongful termination because her actions were allowed under FMLA. Employee won.
Spangler v Federal Home Loan Bank
Employee called employer and left a voicemail stating "depression again," and was discharged. Under ADA, employee's claim failed because she did not show she was able to perform the essential functions of her position because of absenteeism with or without accommodation. On FMLA claim, employer knew 1) employee suffered from depression, 2) she needed leave in the past for depression , and 3) the employee was suffering from depression again. Appellate court reversed FMLA claim for employee and against employer.
This set is often in folders with...
MGMT 448 Exam 1 Concepts
MGMT 448 Exam 1
MGMT 448 Exam 1
MGMT 448 Exam 2 Cases
You might also like...
HR Case Law
Law 3220 1-4 cases, Law Cases Chapter 5-9, law exa…
BUL3130 homework answers
PHR/SHRM-CP cases cited exam prep
Other sets by this creator
MGMT 448 Exam 3 Cases
FLSP 301 Cap. 1
MGMT 448 Exam 1
MGMT 355 Ch. 12, 13, 14
Other Quizlet sets
Mass Comm Law Exam #3
GOV FINAL (No names)
Foundations of the First Amendment Final Exam (Cou…