Running head: Week 2 Case Study

Week 2 Case Study

Justin Chisolm
HRM 401
11/17/2015
Jim Block

WEEK 2 Case Study

2
Pg.680 #8
Should a court order the Department of Labor to honor the appeal, since one of its
agencies gave the human resources manager the incorrect information upon which her company
relied to its detriment? What are the policy considerations pros and cons regarding such a ruling?
Is there a constitutional issue involved in this case?
I feel that in this case the court should order the Department of Labor to honor the appeal
because incorrect feedback was given to the human resource manager who was attempting to
figure out the deadline date to file an appeal and she based her actions on the information
provided by the agency.
A pro of the policy considerations is that the Department of Labor will be able to operate
under the practices that they are familiar with by continuing to prosecute the defendant. A con
related to the considerations is that there was an obvious mistake made by an agency employee
which could possibly impact the case. I feel that there is a constitutional issue and it is related to
the fact that the proper wages had not been paid.
Pg.710 #7
What are the arguments for and against a wrongful discharge cause of action in this case?
Is the plaintiff entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits under this set of facts?
How does your answer to this question affect your answer to the preceding question, if at all?
Are the plaintiffs injuries arguably compensable under the states workers compensation act?
How should the workers compensation act be factored into the courts consideration of the
plaintiffs public policy wrongful discharge claim?
The arguments for terminating both employees is that they both went against company
policy by fighting each other in the workplace and the employer and employee have an at-will

WEEK 2 Case Study

3
relationship. The argument against the decision can be easily made for the plaintiff because he
was assaulted and was just protecting himself. The plaintiffs injuries are compensable under the
states workers compensation act because Dandridge did engage in tortious conduct relative to
the battery. I feel that the court initially made the correct decision and awarded the plaintiff
compensation for the actual damages as well as the lost wages the money for the spouse was
appropriate as well, I dont understand how they came up with the percentage of involvement in
the fight if one person clearly is the aggressor.
However, the damage awards were reversed and the case was remanded based on the
result for the basic reason that Louisiana Civil Code article 2320 holds employers liable for the
damage occasioned by their servants and here, Mr. Quebedeaux was fired for his own
involvement in a fight, not solely because of the actions of Mr. Dandridge.
Pg.710 #8
What are the arguments for and against an employer defense of workers compensation
exclusivity with regard to plaintiffs injuries? How should the court rule?
Ms. Rivers argues that the exception to the impact doctrine created in R.J., 652 So. 2d
360, applies to her injury because the medications she is required to take for her psychological
injury have certain side effects. She also argued that any person in the store at the time of the
robbery who suffered similar injuries should be entitled to recover from Grimsley Oil based upon
its alleged negligence in providing security.
Initially, Grimsley Oil moved to dismiss this action on the theory that the claim was
barred by workers' compensation immunity, which was denied. However, the impact doctrine
usually requires that a plaintiff sustain some sort of physical impact in conjunction with the
defendant's negligence in order to maintain a claim, and seeing how there was no injury or direct

WEEK 2 Case Study

4
intention to cause harm to the plaintiff. Given the Florida Supreme Courts continued recognition
of the viability of the impact rule and the rules importance in maintaining the traditional scope
of negligence law, there was no clear evidence of negligence that the court could establish.