Leding Store Inc. Case Study

1219 Words 5 Pages
1. In the above case, Mary Smith is suing Lending Store, Inc. for being fired without any form of explanation. Mary Smith can argue that she has been decimated and the company has violated the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, “the right of all employees and job applicants (1) to be treated without discrimination and (2) to be able to sue employees if they are discriminated against” Cheeseman, 2007, p. 428). Mary Smith can argue that she was discriminated for having a permanent disability, which requires her to work from a wheelchair, thus causing her to arrive a couple minutes late to work. In addition, according to the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers, …show more content…
In the lawsuit, Smith v. Lending Store, Inc., the company is being sued for the termination of Ms. Smith without any explanation. The company can argue that Ms. Smith was an at-will employee, which indicates the plaintiff didn’t have a contract. Under common law, Lending Store, Inc., could terminate an employee at any time and for whatever reason (Cheeseman, 2007, p. 428). The defendant can argue that the plaintiff didn’t put up with company policies that required all employees to arrive to work on time. Therefore, since Ms. Smith had a tendency to arrive to work late and missed multiple days each moth, this would not be fair to other employees if they didn’t enforce company policies. In addition, Lending Store, Inc., argues that Ms. Smith did not become subject to violation of the Fair Employment Practices Act, since they guarantee that all employees and job applicants are subject to an equal employment opportunity. Furthermore, the company doesn’t discriminate against any form of disability and hire any candidate that can perform the job task. Therefore, Ms. Smith did not fall victim to the antidiscrimination law. In addition, Lending Store, Inc. was able to promote John Jones without violating the law because they are entitled to hire and promote anyone they choose. Therefore, in Lending Store, Inc.’s defense, they argue that they did not violate any Civil Rights Act pertaining to any forms of employment discrimination, mainly the type of disparate-treatment …show more content…
Albert and Baker are concerned that their employees will end up going on strike, thus causing financial damage toward Lending Store Inc., Although, Albert and Baker do not prefer to deal with a union, a strike may become possible with any union. However, there are a number of circumstances under which the union could not legally go on strike against Lending Store Inc. A number of strikes are considered illegal and are not protected by federal labor law. If the employees of Lending Store Inc. were to form a White Collar Workers of America Union and go on strike, they couldn’t engage in violent, sit-down, partial or intermittent, wildcat strikes. Although violent strikes could cause considerable damage to property of Lending Store Inc., the courts normally endure a portion of isolated violence before calling it illegal. Next, a sit-down strike, would mean that employees of Lending Store Inc. would continue to occupy the company’s premise, which is illegal since it wouldn’t allow Lending Store Inc., legal rights to carry on their tasks during the strike. In addition, a partial or intermittent strike, occurs when employees strike a portion of the day and work the other. This type of strike is illegal, since it violates the right of Lending Store Inc. to operate their business at full capacity. Furthermore, a wildcat strike would be considered illegal if individual members of the union go on strike without appropriate authorization from the entire union. According to

Related Documents