Family and Medical Leave Act: allows workers with at least one year of service at a company and at least 1,250 hours preceding (before) year, which has over 50 employee to demand unpaid time off (12 weeks) to handle certain medical situations (births, adoptions, serious illness) • • Demonstrate an understanding of the employment at will doctrine (common law rule Companies can fire workers at any time for any reason besides Civil Rights Act • Constructive discharge: employees forced to quit because of intolerable situatio • Courts will create exceptions on public policy ground called wrongful discharge, espically if employees are fired because they refuse to violate the law called "whistle blowing" • •
to n d e ll, ly es, e). ons , Olsen v. Northern FS, Inc. Disparate treatment case based on firing due to age. Olson won a lot of sales award in 40 years with company. He was replaced with 22 year old woman with no sales experience Wagenseller vs. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital: Wagenseller refused to participate in activities that would violate the indecent exposure statute during a camping trip with supervisor
Quiz notes: If an agent commingles his own money with that of the principal, and if it can no longer be separated or identified, the principal may legally take it. An agent has a duty to account for all the expenses and assets of the principal (related to the contract) and the principal may legally claim any commingled money if it cannot be separated or identified. ○ • Which of the following is an example of when a superior may be held liable for the tortious actions of a subordinate? • The superior is negligent in failing to properly supervise the subordinate. The superior directs the subordinate to commit the tort. The superior allows the subordinate to operate potentially dangerous equipment when he knows or should know the subordinate is unqualified or incapable of handling it safely. All of the above are likely to cause the superior to be found liable for the subordinate's actions. In each of these cases, the principal is at fault and not held merely vicariously liable for the agent’s wrongdoing. ○ Principals may be held liable for contracts signed by their appointed agents even in cases when the agents acted outside of the direct authority granted to them by the principals. Agents have implied authority and apparent authority, in addition to express authority. Implied authority covers acts that the parties did not expressly address when forming the relationship. Apparent authority, although technically outside of the authority of the agent, arises when a principal leads a third party to believe that the agent has authority to do an action. Finally, principals may be liable if they ratify the actions of their agents, even if the agents lacked express, implied and/or apparent authority.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 16 pages?
- Spring '14