Human Resources Employment law for Businesses Case Study

Human Resources Employment law for Businesses - Case Study Example ground upon these facts the company needs to retain lawful counsel because the lawsuit is valid.2. Natalie Weston has a valid lawsuit against her former employer. The store manager broke hugger-muggerity when telling a company calling to verify Ms. Weston previously worked at the company by telling them she came to work drunk. Based upon these things the Martins department store needs to retain legal counsel. In addition the description does not state that the store manager has any proof that Ms. Weston was drunk while at work. With this proof this situation rout out easily be called defamation of character. However, the determination in regards to ruling provide maybe influenced by the evidence presented. If an employee or the potential employer provides a statement that this has occurred the employer will have a strong lawsuit against them.1. There is a difference between an employee that reports a serious or vi olent crime to the police and an employee that reports individual stealing paper clips. The differentiation lies in the determination of the severity of the crime. Raping an individual would constitute a felony and stealing cars or car parts dependent upon the immovable value would also constitute a felony. However, stealing paper clips is not a serve or violent crime. ... However, stealing paper clips usually is dealt with from the inner of the company by company officials. This notion was further demonstrated in this case as the court ruling found that public policy fortunate citizen crime fighters and the exposure of criminal activity (Muhl, 2001, p. 2). Thus ruling that stealing a bonk driver and car parts are not in the same category and protection extends to Palmateer.2. This crime occurring at International Harvester does call for more severity than stealing a two dollar screw driver. Stealing car parts and selling them is more complicated than stealing a screw driver. O btaining stole car parts and selling them is an illegal exploit regardless of who or where the car parts are being stolen from. This operation may expose thefts to stores, or people. Due to the nature of this crime the good combine clause is applicable to this situation.3. Terminated works have some rights that extent past the termination. The termination should not be discussed with other workers in regards to the reason of termination. just the former work has the right to confidentiality. Thus if a new potential employer calls to verify the employee was employed at the facility they should not release details of the termination. This is confidential learning and the company may be sued. In addition the former employer may not say anything that maybe detrimental to the former employees character. This release of information (whether it is true or factious information) may cause the employee not to receive the potential job. This situation presents defamation of character.To fu rther instill the rights of public policy this case occurred in a state that a good faith clause. According to Muhl(2001),the good faith clause has been