Regulations, statutes, and codes observed in an organization determine its success especially in overcoming challenges related to the violations of laws guiding its operations in a particular market. While such regulations, statutes, and codes are important to the business, it is important for the business to consider the impacts when a court delivers some rulings related to them. The party that court rulings favor does not matter but the impacts of the rulings to the business should be considered, as it will affect its operations in different ways. Responsible staff in the organization should follow closely any case in court that affects the organization ( Campbell & Smith, 2017 ). Such follow up will enable the staff to be ready when defending the organization when arguing the case such that they can avoid penalties, which the organization might be instructed to pay when a case favors other parties. Discrimination laws, consumer laws, and employment laws are important legislations that affect various court rulings in business settings.
In the case of employment laws, I will focus on the case of Google Company and the employee James Damore who was fired. James was a computer engineer who was working with the Google before his employment was terminated for circulating a manifesto that violated the company’s code of conduct and advancing harmful gender stereotypes ( Hudson & Pollitz, 2017 ). The manifesto circulated by Damore was raising complaints about ideological echo chamber in the company and that women have a lower tolerance for stress. In his argument, the company was discriminating women regarding the distribution of management and engineering positions. Damore was fighting to ensure there was equality between men and women when sharing positions in management and technical fields, as women were discriminated claiming they were prone to anxiety.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Damore sought legal action claiming that he was entitled to express his concerns and opinions related to the working environment. Dan Eaton argued an employment lawyer argued that it was wrong for the company to punish Damore for interacting and discussing with other employees about the improvement of their working environment. Additionally, he argued that it was unlawful for Google Company to fire him for fighting against discrimination in the company ( Campbell & Smith, 2017 ). This case applies to any business as many employees are punished or fired for fighting for their rights in the organizations. The case will help the employees to understand their rights and fight against any discrimination without fear.
Regarding the discrimination laws, I will focus on the case of Special Forces Veteran and the Library of Congress. In this case, it was determined that the Library Congress was discriminatory when it denied the Special Forces Veteran an opportunity to work with them after announcing that she was indenting to transits from male to female. It shows that Library Congress was discriminatory when offering employment opportunities and it favored men more than women were ( Hudson & Pollitz, 2017 ). Special Forces veteran would be employed if he had not revealed the intention of changing the status. The federal court ruled that the act by the Library Congress was sex discrimination, which was illegal under the federal law. In the business sector, the case is applicable, as women are discriminated due to sexual orientation when organizations are offering promotions or employment opportunities. The ruling, in this case, will help the women to fight against sex discriminations in the organizations.
Considering consumer law, I will focus on the case of US Bank and the debtors. A case was filed in the District Court in Portland accusing the US Bank of collecting more money from the debtors than the legally entitled amount. Debtors being the customers of the US Bank took advantage of them after borrowing from the bank to exceed the entitle amount. The District Court Judge ruled that the act was illegal and the US Bank should pay the debtors compensation with penalty amounting to $2.3 million. The financial institutions offering funds due to their vulnerability mistreat many consumers ( Campbell & Smith, 2017 ). The case can be applied in the business sector when fighting for the innocent debtors mistreated by the banks to pay more money regarding their borrowings. The ruling, in this case, will help the debtors to understand their right and procedures to follow when addressing such issues. Additionally, the financial institutions will understand that they can be held liable when they collect more than the entitled amount from the debtors.
References
Campbell, C., & Smith, D. (2017). Deliberative freedoms and the asymmetric features of anti-discrimination law. University of Toronto Law Journal , 67 (3), 247-287.
Hudson, K. L., & Pollitz, K. (2017). Undermining genetic privacy? Employee wellness programs and the law. New England Journal of Medicine , 377 (1), 1-3.
