Legal and Ethical Scenarios Assignment Help

Select two of the scenarios provided below. Analyze the facts in the scenarios and develop appropriate arguments/resolutions and recommendations using case law and scholarly sources.

Scenario I: Employment Law

Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages. The next day, an employee told the manager that Smith made inappropriate comments about gays to Casey, a Nickels employee who was gay.

Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation. In his statement, Casey reported that Smith pointed her finger and said that God does not accept gays, that gays should not be allowed to marry or have children, and that they will burn in hell. Three employees confirmed Smith's statements.

Nickels terminated Smith's employment after concluding she had engaged in serious harassment in violation of its Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

This policy, of which Smith was aware, prohibits employees from engaging in conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on an individual's status, including sexual orientation, and provides that employees who violate the policy will receive "coaching and/or other discipline, up to and including termination." Nickels has "zero tolerance" for harassment "regardless of whether such conduct rises to the level of unlawful discrimination or harassment" and treats serious harassment as gross misconduct and grounds for immediate termination.

- Smith filed suit, alleging her termination for stating that gays should not marry and will go to hell-a belief that she maintains is an aspect of her Apostolic Christian faith-constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Is she correct?

- If Smith posted the same information on her Facebook page but omitted references to the specific employee, would the outcome of her lawsuit for wrongful termination change?

Scenario II: Professional Torts

Medical malpractice is negligence committed by a physician or a pharmacist. Present an actual case of medical malpractice filed in your state court system or in the federal district court in your state.

You must read the actual case and not an article about the case. You may find the case by first reading the article by researching the South University Online Library or a scholarly source on the Internet, but you will need to read and cite the actual case to receive credit.

Accordingly, respond to the following questions:

- Summarize the facts of the case.

- Provide your state's law or regulation relating to malpractice by physicians or pharmacists.

- Discuss the outcome of the case.

- Explain whether you agree with the verdict. Why or why not?

Get guaranteed satisfaction or money back under Legal and Ethical Scenarios Assignment Help services of Expertsminds.com– order today new copy of this assignment!

Case 1

Overview of the facts of the case:

Smith in the current case scenario, was fired by her employer Nickels based on the allegation that she has engaged in serious harassment as per the discrimination and harassment prevention policies of the organization. Smith involved in a conversation, where she said that the gays will go to the hellfire with another gay employee Casey. There is evidence to support the face that she had involved in this discussion with Casey.

Inferences from the case:

In accordance with the discriminatory policy mentioned in the organization, employees are prohibited from engaging in the conduct that would reasonably be interpreted as harassment based on the individual's status, including sexual orientation. Defaulters will be provided with coaching and or other disciplines up to and including termination.

Analysis

In the current case, there is scope for Smith appeal against her termination. It is based on the grounds that the Title VII has provided reasonable autonomy for the employees to exhibit her own religious beliefs. Employees cannot be subjected to mistreatment due to their religious beliefs or practices.

Further, the discussion is only a conversation and there is no serious and continued religious discrimination claimed on Smith. Smith, the conversation might have impacted the other employee Gay, Casey, however, her conversations are just limited to religious comments, and they have nothing to do with in-person or personal opinions of Smith. All her comments are based on her religious beliefs, and there is nothing in person from Smith as well there is nothing specifically pointed against Casey personally.

The discriminatory policy of the organization will enable serious harassments to be considered for termination. In the current case, the manager Nickels have zero tolerance towards discrimination, but as per policy, there are phases of counselling, training /Coaching and discipline etc. Hence Nickel may take up a coaching session to Smith and other employees to refrain from making controversial comments in the workplace; however, there is no need for complete termination of the Smith from the job. Smith's job can be protected from the Title VII (Mayeri, 2015) provisions of religious autonomy and protection from religious discrimination wills safe guard Smith's position in the organization.

(ii) In the face book, her comments can do nothing with the organization or the employees; there is no scope for any prosecution as she just followed the rights and privileges she has in executing her religious autonomy. There is no need for any action, when she posted her comments on face book without any reference to the employee. However, they can be subjected to the monitoring as per the organizational policies.

Case  2

Facts of the case:

Dr.Conrad Murray, the personal physician of the popular pop singer Michael Jackson, was charged for involuntary manslaughter in June, 2009. General anaesthetic propofol is administered overdose to Jackson, inspite of knowing the side effects of the same as well being employed for personnel care with Jackson. Prosecutors claimed that Dr.Murray administered the propofol on Jackson, which lead to the untimely death of the Jackson. However, the defence attorneys alleged that Jackson owing to the pressure of the rehearsal, administered the drug by himself without knowledge of Murray. However, the prosecutors proved evidence to support that Murray is responsible for the cocktail of medications in Jackson's body, including propofol (Kim, 2014).

State's law regarding the malpractice by physicians

As per California state laws of medical malpractice, the case needs to be filled no later than three years from the instance of the case or one year from the plaintiff discovery of the issue. The compensation is capped for non-economic damages. Pure comparative negligence rules are also applicable in awarding penalties in these cases.

Outcomes of the case

Dr.Murray is penalized to pay the compensation of $100 million to the family of Jackson. He is sentenced for 4 years of imprisonment, and also his medical licenses were suspended.

Reflection

I will agree with the outcome, considering the seriousness of the case it is justified. After all Dr. Murray is deputed to award care for Jackson and his main obligation is not fulfilled in this case and he is entitled for punishment and as it is legally justified. I will agree with the verdict.

Getting Stuck with Similar Assignment? Enroll with Expertsminds’ Legal and Ethical Scenarios Assignment Help services and Get distressed with your assignment worries!