Part 11- Regulation of Business, Chapter 52: Environmental Regulation, Note 1

1. Sanchez v. Azteca: Sexual Harassment    Scenario: Sanchez endured pervasive verbal abuse and gender-based insults from coworkers and a supervisor at Azteca. Despite company policies against harassment, he did not report the issue to corporate officers. Key Question: Was Sanchez subjected to actionable sexual harassment despite not following the complaint procedure? Analysis: Courts typically consider whether the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. Azteca's failure to enforce its own policies could indicate liability, even if Sanchez did not escalate the complaint according to policy. 2. Feliciano v. 7-Eleven: Wrongful Termination and Self-Defense    Scenario: Feliciano disarmed a masked robber and was terminated for violating company policy prohibiting interference during robberies. He sued, claiming the firing violated public policy favoring self-defense. Key Question: Does the public policy exception to at-will employment apply here? Analysis: The court would evaluate whether self-defense constitutes a compelling public policy that overrides company policies. Feliciano may argue that firing him for protecting himself and others undermines societal interests. 3. Fortune v. NCR: Commission and At-Will Employment    Scenario: NCR fired Fortune before the delivery of a $5 million order to avoid paying him a significant commission. Key Question: Did NCR act in bad faith by terminating Fortune to avoid paying his commission? Analysis: Even in at-will employment, courts often recognize implied duties of good faith. Fortune may argue that NCR acted unfairly to deprive him of earned compensation. 4. Johnson Controls: Pregnancy Discrimination and BFOQ Defense   Scenario: Johnson Controls barred women capable of pregnancy from working in lead-exposed jobs. A sterilized employee challenged this policy under Title VII. Key Question: Is the exclusion of fertile women justified as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)?  Analysis: The BFOQ defense is narrowly interpreted. Johnson Controls must prove that the policy is essential for safety and cannot be addressed through less discriminatory means. 5. Caldwell v. KFC: FMLA Violation    Scenario: Caldwell was fired after taking leave to care for her sick child, who required surgery. Key Question: Was Caldwell’s leave protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)? Analysis: The FMLA allows eligible employees to take unpaid leave for serious health conditions of family members. Caldwell’s firing might violate the FMLA if she met eligibility criteria and properly notified her employer. 6. Graning v. Capital Area Rural Transportation System: Religious Accommodation    Scenario: Graning, a bus driver, refused to transport women to a Planned Parenthood clinic due to religious objections and was fired. Key Question: Did the employer violate Title VII by failing to accommodate Graning’s religious beliefs? Analysis: Title VII requires reasonable accommodation unless it imposes undue hardship. The employer may argue that granting Graning’s request would disrupt operations or affect customers’ rights. 7. Smyth v. Pillsbury: Wrongful Termination and Privacy    Scenario: Smyth was terminated for inappropriate emails after Pillsbury assured employees of email confidentiality. Key Question: Did Pillsbury violate public policy by breaching its promise of confidentiality? Analysis: Courts balance privacy expectations with employer rights. Pillsbury's assurances might weigh against its actions, but threats or unprofessional behavior might justify termination. 8. Petty v. Police Department: USERRA Compliance  Scenario: Petty returned from military service but faced delayed reinstatement and investigation into his discharge.   Key Question: Did the department violate the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)? Analysis: USERRA protects returning service members from employment disadvantages. Delays or discrimination based on military service could constitute noncompliance. 9. King, Pugh, and Greenwood v. St. Francis County: Employment Manual as a Contract    Scenario: County employees were terminated despite a manual suggesting termination only for cause. Key Question: Did the manual create an implied contract that restricted atwill termination? Analysis: Courts consider whether an employee handbook implies contractual terms. The manual’s language may favor the plaintiffs if it reasonably suggested job security. 10. City of New Haven: Disparate Impact vs. Disparate Treatment    Scenario: Firefighters sued over discarded test results, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII. Key Question: Was the city justified in discarding results to avoid disparate impact liability, or was this disparate treatment? Analysis: Title VII requires balancing disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) with disparate impact (neutral practices causing inequality). The city must justify its actions under strict scrutiny. Key Trends in Employment Law Issues: 1. At-Will Employment Limitations: Cases frequently test the boundaries of at-will employment, especially where implied contracts, public policy, or bad faith actions are involved. 2. Discrimination and Harassment: Compliance with Title VII and proper handling of workplace harassment remain critical for employers. 3. Employee Privacy: Assurances of confidentiality often clash with employer monitoring practices. 4. Religious and Disability Accommodations: Employers must navigate sensitive accommodations while avoiding undue hardship. 5. Military and Family Leave Protections: Compliance with USERRA and FMLA continues to raise litigation risks.