This essay focuses on Employment Law. Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages.

Employment Law

Scenario I: Employment Law
Carole Smith, an Apostolic Christian, worked as sales associate at Nickels Department Store. One afternoon, during a break, Smith participated in a conversation about God, homosexuality, and same-sex marriages.

Over the next five weeks, Nickels investigated the incident by interviewing and obtaining statements from employees who were present during the conversation. Three employees confirmed Smith’s statements

Firstly,     Smith filed suit, alleging her termination for stating that gays should not marry and will go to hell—a belief that she maintains is an aspect of her Apostolic Christian faith—constitutes unlawful discrimination under Title VII. Is she correct?
Secondly,      If Smith post the same information on her Facebook page but omitted references to the specific employee, would the outcome of her lawsuit for wrongful termination change?

Scenario II: Professional Torts

Medical malpractice is negligence commit by a physician or a pharmacist. Present an actual case of medical malpractice filed in your state court system or in the federal district court in your state. You must read the actual case and not an article about the case.

You may find the case by first reading the article by researching the South University Online Library or a scholarly source on the Internet, but you will need to read and cite the actual case to receive credit.

Accordingly, respond to the following questions:

In addition.      Summarize the facts of the case.
Moreover,      Provide your state’s law or regulation relating to malpractice by physicians or pharmacists.

Further,      Discuss the outcome of the case.
Lastly,     Explain whether you agree with the verdict. Why or why not?

Scenario III: Agency, Employment and Torts

.

Byars told Richmond that she was in a hurry and asked Richmond to work faster. Instead, Richmond slow her pace. At this point, Byars hit Richmond.

It is not clear whether Byars hit Richmond intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the car charger, hit her inadvertently. In response, Richmond grab Byars by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Byars screamed for help.

Management personnel separate the two women and question them about the incident. Richmond was terminate immediately for violating the store’s no-fighting policy.

Byars sued Radio Shack, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (assault and battery) commit by its employee

Further,    Under what doctrine  might Radio Shack be held liable for the tort committed by Richmond?
Firstly,     What is the key factor in determining whether Radio Shack is liable under this doctrine?

Secondly,      How is Radio Shack’s potential liability affected by whether Richmond’s behavior constituted an intentional tort or a tort of negligence?

Thirdly,     Suppose that when Richmond applied for the job at Radio Shack, she disclose in her application that she had previously been convict of felony assault and battery.

Nevertheless, Radio Shack hired Richmond as a cashier. How might this fact affect Radio Shack’s liability for Richmond’s actions?