Moreover, it discovered that she visited the clinic on three occasions during her leave and took clinic supplies home after each visit. Because her conduct violated its code of conduct, the clinic decided to terminate her employment after conducting an investigation. Additionally, there was no evidence that the clinic knowingly tolerated similar conduct by other employees. The court agreed with the clinic, stating that Bloom shouldn't be "shielded" from the consequences for her misconduct simply because she was on FMLA leave.
Decision The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a true course of action. Reasons
Moreover, how did upper management not put a stop to this outrage the very first time it was reported? I understand that investigations are required to verify the validity of an employee’s claim – but apparently, they chose to cover the conduct up, or did not complete the inquiry; thereby condoning the actions of those managers by lack of action. This only fueled their insolence and created an even bigger issue. I definitely believe the jury made the right decision and handed down a verdict that would not only punish the actual managers, but also punished the company itself.
The employees were sanctioned for the underlying charges and the charge of giving the false statements. Holding of the Court: The court ruled in favor of La Chance because agencies
According to the textbook, “the arbitrator exceeded his/her powers or failed to use them to make a mutual, final, and definite award”. Application/Analysis The arbitrator exceeded his/her power since the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee violated it. The fact that the arbitrator follows up with another question to Harton: whether Harton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations, this action explains that the arbitrator had exceeded his/her authority. In addition, the arbitrator “was not totally convinced” which this reveals the fact that he/she failed to make a definite decision.
The court in that case found that since they could always reinstate his job and give him back pay later, the agency didn’t need to hold the hearing prior to firing the employee. One criticism with this decision is that the court gives no guidance on how to compare the factors. For example, how do you compare the risk of error to the fiscal burden to the agency? It’s apples and oranges. It is impossible to create a common metric.
However, the act of Sue was proper as she informed her employer when saw the unlawful and unethical act of the other
The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.
They did not like the fact that he did not work in accordance to the rules. Because the dislike of colleagues did not match the respect of prosecutors, the instance was dropped. Such a serious crime of scientific fraud ignored and dismissed, for something as childish as coworkers not getting along. This was only the beginning of the the allowance of Fred Zain to do whatever his wanted. It was not only West Virginia that made the mistake of hiring such an inadequate person for the job.
Assassinations due to political, religious, and cultural reasons occur either without logical or ridiculous reasoning. Some assassinations are justified and some are not entirely even close to being called justice. One illogical assassination was of famous Tejano music singer “Selena Quintanilla Perez”. Being shot straight in the back with no warning, this case was justified with various reasons. Although the case was justified some may argue that the assassination was in deed never settled.
The inquiry focused on the case being an issue of racism within the Justice System due to an unconventional fact of systemic racism, which is a society structured a certain way that then causes the system to treat minorities different than they treat the majority. There were many different points through Donald Marshall Jr.’s journey with the Supreme Court that led the inquiry to view the conviction was the cause of racism and simply not just a wrongful conviction, main reason being that there was no substantial evidence that could have placed Seale’s death in Marshall’s hands. Also that Donald Marshall Jr. was a Mi’kmaq Native man who was “worth” less in the community than the majority race (white). The main reason that the Inquiry was
The social worker did not handle the case correctly or completely. Herman obviously had some social issues, and showed signs of psychological problems. No action was taken on account of those possible problems. No supervision or consultation was exercised in this case, even though the social worker did not know precisely what should have been done. Though the senior center director seemed to care more about her job than about Herman, she was simply following protocol that comes with her occupation.
Everyone was told to maintain silence, stand up and following that everyone was told to sit down. Then the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Mr REYNOLDS stood up, introduced himself and his party and was given the chance to speak. Following that he started to describe the case to the judges and explaining and providing references from previous cases and also mentions what Polish Club Limited breached. After that the defendant’s lawyer that is MR CLAY was allowed to speak for the defendant who argued for a while and defended Polish Club Limited. The Honour and the other judges questioned Mr Reynolds, the plaintiff’s lawyer, about evidence and reference provided to make sure whether the claim they are making against Polish Club Limited comply and whether Polish Club Limited breached the law.
This proves that throughout the case, Cendant Corporation wasn’t acting fully ethical nor with the desired fiduciary actions to their investors and the auditing team in this case being Ernst&Young. Aside from the trust being broken apart between both, there was never a sign of an internal control inside Cedant. Therefore, there shows that the corporate governance for Cendant Corporation didn’t have signs of existence as well. Most frauds that were occurring before the implementation of the SOX-2002, had top management such as in Cendant that didn’t have care for the ethical performances as much as in today’s corporate world with more regulations in hand by the government. At the end, Cendant had filings against them concerning their corporate governance
Making mistakes is an important part of life. We learn from our mistakes. Mistakes are the best lessons of our life. They are something that happens unintentionally and without the knowledge of a human being. The only way mistakes can be avoided is to never do anything.
