Do you need help writing an essay? For Only $7.90/page Get your custom sample essay

Employment legislation legal risk and thesis

Osha, Employment, Legal Briefs, Legal Brief

Research from Thesis:

Paula states the rationale for the refusal is also infringement of Title IIV and EEOC (Equal Opportunity Commission rate Policy) as it is based merely on the fact that she is women and gets the potential to get pregnant. Sam’s utilization of his electricity is also a continuation of his nuisance, and now appears explicitly ‘quid pro quo. ‘ Certainly not accepting his advances led to a negative effects upon Paula’s job.

We will write a custom essay on On August 6, 1945 the atomic bomb was dropped on t specifically for you
for only $16.38 $13.9/page

Order now

Paula is correct and Sam can be incorrect, lawfully speaking. Whilst fetal protection policies that barred girls of childbearing age from jobs as a result of harm to all their potential fetuses became wide-spread in 1970s and 1980s, the 1991 U. S. Supreme Court ruling in UAW v. Manley Controls announced these regulations to be a type of sexual discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Take action of 1964 (Fetal legal rights, 2009, Law Library).

Scenario 3:

NewCorp has a solid case which the nature of Paul’s work requires him to work in confined spots and they are not in violation of his rights. Considering that this is a vital aspect of Paul’s work, and NewCorp has made reasonable accommodations to give him more space, they are not in violation with the American Disabilities Act, in the event that Paul tries to claim that his claustrophobia is a disability. It is far from a breach of the WUJUD to not seek the services of someone with a disability in the event the disability decreases critical areas of the job.

Paul might have an instance that the initial location of the equipment was harmful, given that 1 employee was injured in the old site. If the staff was functioning the machine correctly, yet would still be injured, Paul could claim that NewCorp was careless regarding worker basic safety, although the current location have been judged secure by NewCorp inspectors. If the original area was as well judged secure, Paul may be reasonably mistrustful of these firm inspectors and inquire for OSHA to review the safety of the fresh set-up.

Beneath OSHA laws, workers have the right to question employers to fix or take away hazards “even if they are not violations of specific OSHA standards” (Worker rights, 2009, OSHA). Paul is within his rights to call OSHA as a member of staff may: “File a splendour complaint (under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act) within 30 days” if the employee is “punished or discriminated against pertaining to exercisingsafety and health rights or to get refusing to work (not guaranteed by the OSH Act) when up against an certain danger of death or perhaps serious injury and there is insufficient time for OSHA to inspect” (Worker rights, 2009, OSHA). However , if no one different other than Paul finds the current location to become hazardous, his main alternative may be to claim that the initial setup was dangerous, improperly inspected, and this caused him psychological stress (his claustrophobia) because he discovered the other worker’s crash.


Customer Law: What is a contract? (2009). Paralegal Advice. Retrieved January 10, 2009 at

Employment at will. (2009). Affitto. Retrieved January 10, 2009 at

Fetal privileges. (2009). Legislation Library. Gathered January twelve, 2009 in

Employee rights. (2009). Retrieved January 10, 2009 at OSHA.

Prev post Next post