Walexron is large, multi-faceted and multi-national corporation. Large corporations regularly deal with ethical and legal issues, and often have their own guidelines and procedures in which they deal with these issues. Each case is different, and will rely on corporate law, guidelines and procedures to determine the outcome of each case.
In the case of Manual Perez, he is arguing that he was wrongfully terminated due to complaining about illegal practices in which Walexron engaged. Unfortunately, Perez had signed an “Acknowledgment of Receipt of Employee Handbook”. Signing this document meant that Perez understood the contents of the handbook and agreed to abide by it. In the handbook, Walexron had laid out an arbitration clause, which Perez …show more content…
Perez could argue that the contents of the handbook were unconscionable, and that if he could have understood its content, he never would have signed the contract (Bagley, 2015, p. 169). Unconscionability of a contract suggests that it is contract that “no honest man in his senses and not under delusion would make on one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other” (Bagley, 2015, p. 169). As a defense, unconscionability is often utilized by non-English speaking parties in employment contracts because there is unequal bargaining power since the non-English speaker is a weaker party (Indiana Law review, p. 188). In an almost identical case, Morales v. Constructors Inc., the case was heard twice, each with a different outcome. A district court found that Morales, a non-English speaker, should not be held responsible for the terms in his contract with Constructor Inc. due the language barrier. However, the Third Court of Appeals decided to hold Morales responsible for the terms of the contract. The Court of Appeals reached this verdict due to the fact just because a …show more content…
She was very religious and did not approve of Adam Upp’s sexual preference due to her religious beliefs. Her work emails and memos she post in the breakroom were accompanied by Bible verses, and she was heard at work saying that “Same-sex marriages are wrong. The Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Adam Upp reported Eve Ann Jellical’s actions to human resources, but this resulted in even more religious scrutiny from her. In response, Adam Upp quit his job. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Adam Upp from employment discrimination based on differences in “their religious beliefs or practices - or lack thereof –in any aspect of employment.” His sexual orientation preference is also protected under the Title VII (EEOC LGBT Workers, n.d., para.6). Not only did her initial behavior violate Adam Upps rights, increasing her offending behavior made her discriminatory actions blatantly obvious. Since Eve Ann Jellical’s behavior was so bad that Adam Upps had to leave the company he could argue constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as: “forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so intolerable a reasonable person would not be able to stay” (EEOC Prohibited
In the case of Manual Perez, he is arguing that he was wrongfully terminated due to complaining about illegal practices in which Walexron engaged. Unfortunately, Perez had signed an “Acknowledgment of Receipt of Employee Handbook”. Signing this document meant that Perez understood the contents of the handbook and agreed to abide by it. In the handbook, Walexron had laid out an arbitration clause, which Perez …show more content…
Perez could argue that the contents of the handbook were unconscionable, and that if he could have understood its content, he never would have signed the contract (Bagley, 2015, p. 169). Unconscionability of a contract suggests that it is contract that “no honest man in his senses and not under delusion would make on one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other” (Bagley, 2015, p. 169). As a defense, unconscionability is often utilized by non-English speaking parties in employment contracts because there is unequal bargaining power since the non-English speaker is a weaker party (Indiana Law review, p. 188). In an almost identical case, Morales v. Constructors Inc., the case was heard twice, each with a different outcome. A district court found that Morales, a non-English speaker, should not be held responsible for the terms in his contract with Constructor Inc. due the language barrier. However, the Third Court of Appeals decided to hold Morales responsible for the terms of the contract. The Court of Appeals reached this verdict due to the fact just because a …show more content…
She was very religious and did not approve of Adam Upp’s sexual preference due to her religious beliefs. Her work emails and memos she post in the breakroom were accompanied by Bible verses, and she was heard at work saying that “Same-sex marriages are wrong. The Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Adam Upp reported Eve Ann Jellical’s actions to human resources, but this resulted in even more religious scrutiny from her. In response, Adam Upp quit his job. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Adam Upp from employment discrimination based on differences in “their religious beliefs or practices - or lack thereof –in any aspect of employment.” His sexual orientation preference is also protected under the Title VII (EEOC LGBT Workers, n.d., para.6). Not only did her initial behavior violate Adam Upps rights, increasing her offending behavior made her discriminatory actions blatantly obvious. Since Eve Ann Jellical’s behavior was so bad that Adam Upps had to leave the company he could argue constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as: “forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so intolerable a reasonable person would not be able to stay” (EEOC Prohibited