In the United States, workers are protected against wrongful termination. Essentially, wrongful termination involves a violation of employment contracts and law when dismissing an employee (Doherty, Helms & Wright, 2005). When an employee believes that the terms of their employment contract were breached when they are fired, the employee may seek the intervention of the court. In most cases, the court examines the terms of the contract and the provisions of employment law. If it is determined that wrongful termination did occur, the court may order reinstatement or financial compensation.
There are a number of cases that highlight the intervention of the courts in cases involving wrongful termination. The legal battle involving Paul Blakeslee and his employer, Shaw Environment and Infrastructure is one such case. In this case, Blakeslee contested his termination arguing that he was fired after raising the alarm over misconduct on the part of his supervisor (Schaefer, 2013). Blakeslee had written a report in which he called out the supervisor for owning a company that rendered services to Shaw Environment and Infrastructure. The supervisor did not follow procedures that demanded competitive bidding. In retaliation, the supervisor had Blakeslee fired. He argued that Blakeslee was being fired with the objective of reducing the costs that the company incurred. In his lawsuit, Blakeslee further contended that his advanced age also played a role in his dismissal (Schaefer, 2013). He claimed that he had been a victim of age discrimination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the case above, the jury determined that Blakeslee had been dismissed wrongfully and awarded him $3.5 million (Schaefer, 2013). I support his verdict because I believe that Blakeslee’s termination was wrongful. The Prohibited Personnel Practices Act accords protection to whistleblowers. It forbids companies from retaliating against employees who highlight malpractices (“ 5 U.S. Code § 2302”, n.d). . I find that Blakeslee was essentially a whistleblower and therefore enjoys the protections that this act provides. Another reason for supporting the verdict is that the dismissal amounted to age discrimination. In the US, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act shields employees from age discrimination. Blakeslee’s dismissal was in contravention of this act.
There are a number of measures that the human resource division at Shaw Environment and Infrastructure could have instituted to avoid the legal battle. Providing protections to whistleblowers is among these measures. When firms provide such protection, they create an environment where employees can report malpractices (Lewis, 2010). Such an environment shields companies from losses and damage to their image. Another measure that the HR division could have taken is ensuring that proper procedures are followed when dismissing an employee. Had the HR division investigated Blakeslee’s dismissal, it would have determined that the dismissal had no basis and ordered that he be reinstated.
In most cases, employees have limited power and are therefore unable to demand respect for their rights. However, this does not mean that appealing to the courts is the only option available to employees when they feel aggrieved. Instead of rushing to court, Blakeslee should have appealed to the company to hear his concerns and reinstate him. As already noted, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Prohibited Personnel Practices Act are the major laws that address wrongful termination as in Blakeslee’s case. These acts insulate employees against wrongful dismissal and obligate employers to follow due procedure when firing their employees. The verdict of the jury in Blakeslee’s case will definitely shape my conduct as a human resource professional. Thanks to the verdict, I now recognize that companies cannot retaliate against whistleblowers. The verdict has also allowed me to understand that age discrimination is unacceptable. I shall endeavor to be objective in my relations with employees and ensure that any concerns that they raise are addressed.
The Blakeslee case is not the only one that concerns wrongful termination. Another case involved Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E). In this case, Thomas Jones, an employee sued the firm for wrongful dismissal. Jones argued that he was forced to repair an electric pole with live wires (Baxter, 2013). While no injuries occurred during the repair, Jones suffered emotional harm. He endured depression and panic attacks. The emotional distress made it difficult for him to perform his duties. He also complained that his supervisor had violated the company’s safety guidelines when he required them to work on the live wires. After refusing to return to work, Jones was fired (Baxter, 2013). The supervisor had insisted that Jones and his team repair the pole and refused to switch off the power. This was dangerous as a cross arm broke and wires came within a short distance of touching one another. Had the wires touched, an explosion would have occurred.
The jury hearing the case decided to award Jones over $1 million in damages. $595,615 of this amount was for the earnings that he had missed while $500,000 was for the emotional harm that he endured (“PG&E Employee Collects”, 2015). I agree with this verdict. This is because the company clearly violated safety guidelines and placed the lives of Jones and his colleagues at risk. It is little wonder that Jones suffered emotional harm. The company must be made to compensate him for the harm that he endured. Another reason for supporting the verdict is that Jones’ dismissal amounts to a violation of employment law. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act shields employees against dismissal when they raise safety concerns (DOL, n.d). PG&E clearly violated this act when it fired Jones.
Ensuring that employees work in safe environment is one of the measures that the human resource department could have implemented to avoid the case. In addition to protecting employees who raise safety concerns against dismissal, the OSH Act also mandates firms to institute safety measures (OSHA n.d). The HR department should have complied with the provisions of this act. The department could also have reprimanded the supervisor for making Jones and his team work on the live wires. The OSH Act is the primary law that covers the issues in Jones’ case. This Act protects whistleblowers while requiring employers to provide safeguards against hazards.
The case of Jones and PG&E has allowed me to understand that employees may refuse to participate in assignments that they find to be dangerous. The employer cannot dismiss the employee for this refusal. Instead of firing the employee, the employer needs to eradicate hazards thus creating a safe environment. These are lessons that I intend to integrate into my practice as a HR professional. In conclusion, it is important for companies to protect the rights of their employees. Before dismissing an employee, the firm must establish that there is cause. Companies must also confirm that dismissing an employee is in line with applicable laws. This goes a long way in creating a fair workplace.
References
5 U.S. Code § 2302- Prohibited Personnel Practices. (n.d). Retrieved 6 th September 2017 from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302
Baxter, S. (2013). PG&E Worker Wins $1 Million in Santa Cruz Wrongful Termination Lawsuit.
Retrieved 6 th September 2017 from http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/12/16/pge-worker-wins-1-million-in-santa-cruz-wrongful-termination-lawsuit/
Doherty, J. J., Helms, M. M. & Wright, G. W. (2005). Employee Discharge and
Documentation. Lorman Business Center.
Lewis, D. B. (Ed.). (2010). A Global Approach to Public Interest Disclosure: What can we
Learn from Existing Whistleblowing Legislation and Research? Edward Edgar
Publishing.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (n.d). OSHA Law & Regulations.
Retrieved 6 th September 2017 from https://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html
PG&E Employee Collects $1 Million in Santa Cruz Wrongful Termination Claim. (2015).
Retrieved 6 th September 2017 from https://asmlawyers.com/pge-employee-collects-1-million-santa-cruz-wrongful-termination-claim/
US Department of Labor (DOL). (n.d). The Whistleblower Protection Programs. Retrieved 6 th
September 2017 from https://www.whistleblowers.gov/
