The court should compel Dill industries to compensate Angus for the reason that the Tornado the calamity happened when Angus and the family were in a house which was provided by the company. The house which housed Angus family was located on the grounds of Dill industries because the company required Angus to maintain presence on the premises meaning that he could work even when in the house. On the fateful day Angus was in the house waiting for the arrival of a truck which he purposed contact for the reason that he had a telephone in his house, this means that the tornado struck when Angus was in line of duty though in his house.
The action of Cochran inflicted emotional distress to Adams, this falls under “intentional torts”. Though there was no written contract to state otherwise, the circumstances under which Adams was fired demonstrates a violation of his rights. Adams should use the doctrine of intentional torts to recover damages from Cochran for the damages that he suffered.
Workers compensation claims require that for a worker to be compensated he/she should have been in line of duty when an injury occurs. Linda’s claim should not be granted for the reason that it is difficult to prove if the injury occurred when she was practicing the standing long jump or on other courses for the reason that she was out of duty.
The court will agree since Gabor wrongfully fired, he was a salesperson and his communication with customers should not be accessed by the employers for the reason that it is confidential and such conversations are protected by the law.
“California Law Penal Code § 632, enacted under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, makes it illegal for an individual to monitor or record a “confidential communication” confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties.
The court will agree in one part with Simmons for the reason that Stephen refused to adhere to laid down procedures of being searched. On the other hand Stephen went public with his concerns as a last resort because the company took no step when he first raised the issue. The court will disagree with Simmons on this part for the reason that Stephen was concerned with the safety of other people.
The court should compel Hercules to compensate her for age discrimination because each aspect of a case should be treated independent of each other. The failure in the verification process of Hercules should not have an impact on the case because this only arose when they terminated Dorothy and Hercules should be responsible for the breakdown of its verification process.
Mary cannot establish a “prima facie case” of religious discrimination because the evidence available is insufficient and burden of proof of the issue that she is raising lies on her. The rules of the store were clear that vacations and holidays were not allowed in the month October. Mary has no proof that she was terminated because she went to a place which had not been designated as an official pilgrimage by the church. It is evident that her termination was premised on the vacation she took in a month which the store did not allow regardless of the place she went.