This legal process paper will cover the scenario of Mark, the candy salesperson obtaining a major account that his company has been trying to acquire, and just before Mark could collect his commission on the sale, he was abruptly terminated. In this paper I will argue both sides as an employer and an
employee; because the scenario did not specify the exact reason Mark was fired. There are certain conditions in which Congress would intervene, if employers are overstepping their boundaries. Employee reserves the basic rights of opportunities if deemed qualified by an employer. Therefore, “Congress has passed employment-related laws when it believes that the employee is not on equal footing with the employer” (Bennett-Alexander, 2007, p.1).
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Federal, 2004, p.4), however, the conditions does not clearly conclude that this was the reason(s) for Mark’s termination. So based on the inconclusive evidence, I will assume that the termination arrived from other issues. If Mark’s employer has had a set of rules and regulations in course for all employees, including Mark to abide by, then whenever these rules are broken, according to the employer’s standard of disciplinary action, the employer if given a fair warning has the right to terminate its employee.
There are several reasons why Mark would have been terminated: misconduct, not abiding by certain code of ethics, theft, being disgruntle, or sexual harassment. Any of these impropriations, can deem reasonable for immediate termination, however, as an employee, you reserve the right to know the reason of termination. As long as the termination was not deliberate done to target Mark as an individual for no apparent reason, then the employer should terminate Mark, if it feels that Mark was in violation of any work misconduct. However, if Mark was specifically targeted discriminated against, then according to the “Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination” (Federal, 2004, p.4), then Mark have the basis on which to sue for unlawful termination.
Mark Richter has the right to file a law suit to get his money, and also file for punitive damages if the employer’s conduct is found to be intentional or malicious. Mark has the right to proceed with his case, and may be awarded in court for punitive damages, along with compensatory damages.
Assumptions are made that Mark was terminated for no apparent reasons; therefore, he is entitled to monetary gain from his employer for what is perceive to be wrongful termination. Despite the action, “there are no Federal wrongful termination law per se, rather there are a variety of Federal laws that, if violated by employers when discharging employees, might constitute wrongful termination” (Wrongful, 2007, p.1).
Mark Richter has a legitimate case, which may be applied in civil court or the local court system. However, if his case is denied, then he could appeal it and ask if the case can be viewed at the higher level courts, which is usually the state court. If Mark is also denied at the state level courts, then he can appeal again, and ask for the case to be reviewed at the United States Supreme Court. Since Mark’s case may fall under federal laws, he may have the opportunity to be heard at the Supreme Court, however, at the Supreme Court’s “discretion, and within certain guidelines established by Congress, the Supreme Court each year hears a limited number of the cases it is asked to decide” (United, 2007, p.1).
The uncertainty of this case has led the argument to be biased on both sides. Mark has a legitimate lawsuit if he was wrongfully terminated, thus he has a basis on which he can sue for unlawful termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if his case falls under this federal guidelines. If his case does not fall under federal discrimination guidelines, then his employer reserves the right to terminate him under company policies.
Bennett-Alexander, (2007). Employment law for business: The regulation of employment. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary/content/eReader.h.
Federal. (2004). Federal equal employment opportunity laws. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_laws.html.
United. (2007). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.uscourts.gov/supremecourt.html.
Wrongful. (2007). Wrongful termination. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://employeeissues.com/wrongful_termination_2.htm.