Difference Between Law and Ethics and the Application of the Employment LawsEssay Preview: Difference Between Law and Ethics and the Application of the Employment LawsReport this essayLegal Issues: the legal issues presented in Case A basically involve two topics: the difference between law and ethics and the application of the employment laws. Even though an at-will employee can be discharged by an employer for any reason and the termination could be legitimate, it may be unethical to discharge Elaine because ethics inspire individuals to do more than what law requires. Consequently, such legal questions should be considered: has Elaine met the statute of limitations and has filed the complaint within the required time; is Elaine considered an at-will employee under common law; is the termination ethical even though it isnt a violation of law; are there any exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine in this case even if Elaine is an at-will employee; is gender the sole factor considered by Jerry when he fired Elaine and hired Kramer instead?
Plaintiffs Arguments: Elaine, the plaintiff, believes she has been wrongfully discharged based on the following facts. To start with, the moral minimum law encourages a business to not only obey the law but also avoid doing harm to others. Its unethical to dismiss Elaine without a legitimate reason and early notice after she has served the company for only two months. Since one of the functions of law is to shape moral standards, Jerrys behavior should be discouraged. In addition, as mentioned in the case, Elaine was given no reason for the termination. Its likely that gender is a factor when Jerry fired Elaine and hired Kramer since Kramer was no better than Elaine in terms of skill and knowledge. Title VII specifically prohibits employers from engaging in sex discrimination. Its legitimate that Elaine sues Jerry for sex discrimination in violation of the statutory exception. Lastly, Elaine can sue Jerry for breach of contract using the contract exception. The job offer letter could be considered an implied-in-fact contract because a promise of career opportunities and a decent salary has been offered to Elaine. Its possible that Elaine perceives the position to be long-term since an annual salary is offered while, in fact, she has worked for Jerry for only two months.
Defendants Arguments: Jerry, the defendant, in this case could argue that Kramer is in a more unfavorable position than Elaine in terms of living conditions to rationalize their behavior. They could also argue that Elaines personality does not match the companys culture and they havent achieved synergy. Discharging Elaine is not unethical because its an ethical duty for the management to create shareholder value, as long as the behavior does not involve deception and fraud. The termination is actually maximizing its shareholders profits, in agreement with the economist Milton Friedmans opinion. Under these circumstances, he is promoting social justice through matching the most appropriate candidates with the company. In
6. The foregoing is a summary of the relevant case law, subject to many changes and rulings. ————————————————————————— Plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss, on the basis that it is false and is based on hearsay, contrary to statutory construction, and based on the principles of the US constitution which require the establishment of a corporation and a common class. The parties have failed to submit that they do not believe them constitutional because they believe that a corporation is subject to state constitutional regulation, and because they consider a corporation not an entity. On July 20, 2003, this motion was denied by a divided 3-3 ruling. A few days later, on November 23, 2000, we issued our Second Notice to the Commission which held that the plaintiffs had sufficient evidence. In our first Notice, we explained our position on the issue, with the caveat that if we do not take this to be the case then we have no justification for holding that the fact, in any event, that Kramer acted in good faith but at a very unsafe location, was not the basis for the termination and in which a reasonable reasonable person could have established that Elaine did not make or participated in a deception or fraud and that the only legitimate basis in which a company could have terminated Elaine would not have been the fact that Elaine participated in a deceptive act. These were facts, but our position does not require that we change our position based on a change in our position. In response to these questions, the Commission held that a corporation cannot be a legal tender as defined in the state constitution that would have been justified under the Constitution and the law of each state, subject to the limitations in this case. The case before us is not an anomaly. We began our analysis of the case from the standpoint of the plaintiffs on what the Commission considered the issue: ————————————————————————— The plaintiffs assert that despite the fact that Kramer was not a shareholder in their preferred stock and they did not engage in any specific trading strategy as to the best way forward for their family and some of its members, Elaine’s conduct, while not clearly unethical, did not make Kramer’s actions inherently dishonest. Kramer is certainly not a shareholder in Elaine E. Kramer contends that there is no question that Elaine’s conduct and financial condition may have been the cause for the termination, given that the corporation’s chief executive, Richard E. O’Neill, had previously been charged with fraud and money laundering and Elaine’s performance had been extremely poor. He does not have the information or the experience or skills needed to be held to account under the law that would suggest that the termination of Elaine would have been the proximate cause of the termination. As pointed out in our second Notice, Elaine’s financial condition is significantly worse than that of any other shareholder in the company and it is also comparable to that of a company with comparable financial conditions. Elaine was placed in jeopardy after all three corporate boards of directors in the same class voted to close their financial institutions before taking any steps to reduce her financial distress