What Is Business Law - Case Study Example

What is Business Law? Business law serves to regulate and guide relationship between the parties involved in business procedures. These laws define how business entities ought to conduct their business practices directed towards all the stakeholders involved (Miller and Jentz 43). Within an organization, employment law guides relationship between employees and the employer. Within an organization, business law stipulates the rights of employees within their work places. In practice, employers should stick to the inferences made by these laws in all their relations with their employees. In a situation where an employer violates an element contained in the law, an employee can take the case to court (Miller and Jentz 63). The court will listen to the employee’s grievances upon which the aggrieved party gets justice. In this context, the aggrieved employee assumes the role of a plaintiff while the employer is the defendant. In order to avoid unfavorable verdict or even dismissal of a case, an employee has to supplement the court with sufficient and credible evidence that substantiates his/her legal claim. At this juncture, we will apply business law in evaluating a context which illustrates a legal conflict between an employer and an employee. In this case, Clark, who is an employee, assumes the role of a plaintiff while Danskin’s Inc management, who is the employer, acts as a defendant. In this case, Danskin Inc dismisses Clark after allowing labor union agents to infiltrate the company’s work environment. This case contains components which fall under federal and state business laws. In the first place, this law concerns an employer who opposes union influence in a work place. Federal laws like EIRSA explicitly highlight the aspect of labor unions in an integrated work place. This law asserts that an employer should not institute policies or even make inferences which serve to prevent its employees from joining a labor union (Miller and Jentz 72). According to this federal law, it is illegal to frustrate employees' efforts when they are striving to join a labor union. In addition, this practice violates the rights of union organizations. Apart from the element of labor unions, federal business laws stipulate principles concerning to retirement benefits. Under the element of Benefits Package Act, the relevant laws assert that an employer should follow all the procedures involving an early retirement plan. In case of an early retirement, an employer should award an employee all the benefits required by the Benefits Package Plan (Miller and Jentz 78). In Clark’s case, the package offered to Clark did not extend certain benefits like insurance cover and social security, which features in the federal benefits package. In addition to the federal laws, this case contains instances which require intervention by state Torts. State Torts assert that an employer should relate honestly and clearly the reasons for an employee’s dismissal (Miller and Jentz 81). The reasons behind an employee’s dismissal should genuine and explicitly conform to the elements contained in the employer’s claim. In this context, an employer violates a tort by dismissing an employee for reasons other than the ones cited during the dismissal process. State Torts also infers that an employer cannot dismiss an employee for reasons of incompetence when the same employer instated that employee in a given position within the work place. This tort acknowledges that during a promotion, an employer evaluates an employee’s competence and professional capabilities before the exercise (Miller and Jentz 99). Therefore, an employer cannot later accuse an employee of incompetence and being unprofessional. In the underlying case, the company’s management accuses Clark of being lenient in making judgments. At this juncture, we have acknowledged both the state and federal laws contained in the case. The next step requires Clark to present a prime facie case in order to succeed in her legal claim. With respect to the concept of prima facie, Clark should prove that the employer did not present genuine reasons or her dismissal. In this case, the company’s management accuses Clark of being poor in judgment. Apparently, this is not the reason for her dismissal. Danskin’s management opposes the presence of labor unions within the organization. Clark went contrary to management’s principles when she invited union’s ideologies into the premises. In this context, Clark will substantiate that the company had no genuine reasons for her dismissal. In addition, Clark should prove that the company violated the Benefits Package principles during the dismissal process. Danskin’s counsel presented her with a benefits package which omitted some of the fundamental package’s requirements. In ideal context, an employer should follow all the steps required during an early retirement plan. However, Danskin’s management did not consider awarding Clark all the required benefits when they presented her with the early retirement package. Evidence on the benefits package offered by the company’s counsel will serve as evidence to prove this claim (Miller and Jentz 89). Based on the underlying case, the company had a hidden pretext for Clark’s dismissal. In the work place, Clark displayed competence in her professional responsibilities. This made her popular among the employees. In this case, the CEO and the management discriminated Clark on the basis of her performance and popularity in the work place. In order to substantiate this, Clark should prove instances where her competence and professionalism resulted in discredit from the management (Miller and Jentz 121). One instance is when Clark made a decision to invite union influence into the company. From Clark’s perspective, this decision is professional because federal law allows employees to join any labor union. However, the company’s management disapproves Clark of her action; hence dismissing her. Therefore, the employer had a hidden pretext for Clark’s dismissal. Based on the provisions of law and the validity of evidences presented, the court will rule the case in favor of Clark. Danskin’s management will compensate Clark for damages made during and after the dismissal process. The company’s management dismissed the employee based on hidden pretext. Therefore, the viable compensation is to reinstate Clark into the vice president’s position. This means that the company will compensate Clark for all the wages she missed during her absence as Dankin’s vice president. In addition, Clark will receive damages from the tort violations made by the company during dismissal. The company’s management will clarify that Clark is competent and demonstrates credible professionalism at the work place. This will entitle her to monetary compensation resulting from damage of her professional reputation (Miller and Jentz 84). Work Cited Miller, Roger and Jentz, Gaylord. Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More