{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

HC 260 Week 4 Discussion

Compare and contrast that case to your answer on the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Neumann. Compare and contrast that case to your answer on the elements of a contractual handbook. With everything we have covered in our text and about the employee contract as far as a contract goes I feel that this was a contract regardless if it said otherwise. Even though it states in it that it could change whenever at the discretion of the management none of the procedures were followed about terminating someone and Olsen did not even do anything on the list wrong. To me it did seem like the Souris CO was looking for loop holes and wanted to use the employee handbook as a contract when they needed too and not use it when they didn’t want too. They were trying anyway they could to prove they had rights to fire someone when in reality they didn’t. I agree with the ruling and I feel that Olson won because Souris CO failed to clarify whether the handbook was set policies or not. 3. After you have reviewed the cases that are posted in the case thread for Week 4 please select one and explain the facts and why you agree, or disagree with the decision. I chose the Eli v. Griggs County Hospital and Nursing Home because this ruling had to be so easy. First off I agree a 100% with the ruling, no questions about it. Eli was a nurse who had a bad attitude and made inappropriately rude comments to her boss and not to mention the fact patients were around to see and hear them. Nurses are there to help the doctors and the patients and we expect them to be friendly and helpful. As a nurse she is supposed to have high standards in the workplace and she clearly did not want her job. Her filing charges against the hospital for defamation was laughable because everything she got fired for was because of her own actions and nothing about it was not a true statement. In order to win defamation it has to be “Injury of a person’s reputation or character caused by the false statements of another made to a third person.”
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}