What possible causes of action might Barry Boozer have against the Bottomless Cup?
The Bottomless Cup leadership was aware of Manny’s behavior. While vetting and signing up employees, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that he or she hires the best workforce for his or her business. In this case, the Bottomless Cup failed in the vetting process and the organization is liable for its employees’ conduct. Barry’s case banks on the fact that the employees knew Manny’s behavior before his employment. It has been stated in the case study that even before Manny was employed he had been involved in a fight at the same parking lot.
Therefore, the owners of the organization should be held liable for Manny’s misconduct. According to the law, Manny’s conduct is generally viewed as negligence and recklessness. In employment law, it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that his or her employees are acting in uttermost professional conduct. Serious misconduct occurs when an individual is involved in very erroneous acts. Manny’s behavior amounts to the violation of customers’ rights and the fact that his employers are aware of his propensity to commit such a crime, they are liable for his actions. Barry’s rights were grossly violated in o many ways during this ordeal (Cushway 45).
First of all, he was physically assaulted by an employee at the Bottomless Cup. Barry can sue the organization for assault and damages caused in the process and this will be a viable and strong case against the company. Secondly, Barry can also sue the organization for damages in terms of the time loss, while he was hospitalized and also all the pain that he underwent through the treatment process. After the incident, Barry did not only suffer from physical pain but also emotional distress. By the law, if a customer is injured while on the premises of the business, the cost of medical care should be the organization’s responsibility. Therefore, Barry should sue the bottomless Cup to settle the bills incurred at the hospital. Besides, he can sue the organization for neglect which would be a very strong case, considering that the employers were aware that their employee had anger issues.
Additional fact needed for further legal claims
In this case, there is several additional information that is not so clear, hence inhibiting the ability to make more legal claims. The case has only mentioned that the customer was assaulted at the parking lot and no further information has been given. To make more legal claims, in this case, one needs to know the cause of the assault. It is important to identify what caused or prompted Manny to overreact the way he did. What had Barry done to provoke Manny who is employed at the Bottomless Cup as a bouncer? Bouncers are employed to protect the business and to maintain order in social gatherings and some of the legal claims of assault may not apply in this case if Barry was not innocent. Further legal claims, we need to know what Barry had done or had not done to provoke the bouncer’s attention.
What arguments might the Bottomless Cup raise in its defense?
One of the most probable defenses for the Bottomless Cup is the right for employees not to be discriminated against. Employees and prospective employees have a right to be free from discrimination (Walsh 67). With this argument, the Bottom Cup had a moral and professional obligation to consider Manny for employment if he had the required qualification. It is wrong to discriminate against an employee or an applicant for a job opportunity due to their personality. Even though the employers were aware of his conduct and anger issues, it is important to consider the job requirements for the position. If Manny was qualified enough, the organization had no reason to deny him the opportunity based on his prior misconduct when he was not an employee in the company.
Considering the possibility that Barry was wrong in this case, Bottomless Cup can also argue that it was under Manny’s job description to protect the origination’s interests. Working as a bouncer means one has to confront anyone who threatens or seems to disturb peaceful parties. Regarding the issue of neglect, the Bottom Cup can defend itself by arguing that it was not responsible for its workers’ misconduct. Although this point may raise ethical concerns, it is still a viable defense line. Bottomless Cup can argue that its employees take full responsibility for their actions and that the organization does not condone such actions. However, this might be a very delicate approach, since the law has stipulated that the actions and conduct of employees are directly attributed to the company’s values.
Arguing that the employer acted on his terms, can be a viable argument for the Bottomless Cup defense. Also, the organization can defend its employment process by justifying the danger and vulnerability of its customers in such gatherings. In social gatherings, where people get drunk and careless, many disastrous outcomes are possible. To avoid this, one has to be prepared for unforeseen eventualities. This argument can justify the reason why the Bottomless Cup had hired Manny knowing about his conduct and anger issues, as it was evident from his prior actions.
Deciding the case/rationale
Determining this case requires additional information as suggested earlier. For a fair ruling and a competent judgment, one needs to have the facts about actions from both the defendant and the plaintiff. In this case, the defendant’s position is very unclear, hence making a ruling may turn out to be an unfair judgment. However, going by the facts given in the case, my ruling would find the Bottomless Cup liable for its employee’s actions. The aspect of negligence is displayed in this case, considering that the employer was aware of the employee’s code of conduct.
Hiring such an individual is proof enough to show that the employer was ignorant about the safety of the customers. In every social gathering, the safety of the customers is a priority. In my ruling, the employer will have to bear the cost and damages caused to the customer. I believe that it is within the customer’s right to be treated with respect and in such a joint. The bouncer was responsible for maintaining order at Bottomless Cup but his conduct cannot be justified. Normally, in maintaining order, he is simply supposed to throw troublemakers out of the party but not physically assault them.
Therefore, regardless of the justification that Manny might have, his actions are legally inappropriate, hence my ruling. Justice is not finding an amicable and common compromise, rather it is about making each party pay for their actions in every situation. Therefore, as far as the provided facts are concerned, Bottomless Cup is liable for its employee’s actions.
Does affirmative action result in quotas and reverse discrimination?
There have been major concerns about affirmative action, especially in employment. Many people believe that affirmative action leads to a reversed discrimination, while others see it as a voice for the weak. Depending on the angle you are looking at in affirmative action, one can be right on both assumptions. One of the major justifications of affirmative action is that it protects the weak and vulnerable. Affirmative action is mostly viewed as positive discrimination and in some countries like Canada, it is known as employment equity (Yamada 16). Such policies are known to improve employment opportunities for a member of the minority groups and women (Yamada 17).
Affirmative actions are policies that seek to stand up for the rights and privileges of the disadvantaged persons in the community including people with disabilities among other minority groups. Indeed, affirmative actions lead to reversed discrimination. While these policies protect the vulnerable in society, they also give them an advantage over the rest of the population. For instance, some policies have made it legally enforceable to have a particular percentage of female employees. This percentage must be met and failure to that a legal suit is viable. This gives women an advantage since their slots are already assured in the job market. In parking lots, the disabled do not have to push for parking spaces, since they have their already designated spaces. Affirmative action, in the real sense, is reverse discrimination giving some groups an advantage over others. However, in some instances, it is positive discrimination, especially when it comes to people with disabilities.
Works Cited
Yamada, David C. “Workplace Bullying and the Law: US Legislative Developments 2013-15.” Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 1.1(2015): 15-23. Print.
Walsh, David. Employment Law for Human Resource Practice (South-Western Legal Studies in Business), New York, NY: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Cushway, Barry. The Employer’s Handbook 2014-15: An Essential Guide to Employment Law, Personnel Policies and Procedures. New York, NY: Kogan Page Publishers, 2014. Print.