law (legal environment of business)
sbatniji
law_10.docxWeek 10
6-Safeway operates a bread- baking facility in Denver, Colorado. Safeway periodically holds company- sponsored outdoor barbecues for its employees, and it purchased a gas grill equipped with a 20- pound propane tank for the barbecues. To ensure that the grill had sufficient gas for the barbecues, Safeway purchased a 40- pound tank. The larger tanks have a warning label stating that they should not be used with a grill ordi-narily equipped with a 20- pound tank. Safeway planned to hold an employee barbecue on July 17, 1998. The plant superintendent, Edward Boone, instructed the plant engineer, Jerry Lewis, to set up the grill for the barbecue. On being informed that the grill was not adequately cooking the meat, the plant manager, Jim Kirk, again summoned Lewis. Lewis and the day- shift maintenance foreman, Fred Lake, attempted to improve the flow of gas to the grill by checking the regulator and reposition-ing the tank. While Lewis and Lake were work-ing on the grill, fuel escaped and a “ ball of fire” erupted. Lewis suffered severe burns to his hand and Lake’s facial hair was singed. After an inves-tigation, an OSHA inspector issued a citation to Safeway. Safeway appealed the decision. Was this a workplace safety violation? Why or why not? [ Safeway, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm., 382 F. 3d 1189 ( 10th Cir. 2004).]
7-Baxter Pharmacy paid its pharmacists a salary but no overtime pay. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA), employers must pay employees over-time for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Baxter Pharmacy believes that the phar-macists are exempt under FLSA because they are “ professionals.” The pharmacists disagree. Is being a professional an exemption from the requirement to pay overtime under FLSA? Are pharmacists pro-fessionals? How do you think the court ruled? [ De Jesus- Rentas v. Baxter Pharmacy Services Corp., 400 F. 3d 72 ( 1st Cir. 2005).]
7-43-In late 2000, Stacy Hegwine applied for a clerk/ order checker position in Fibre’s customer service department. The ad mentioned no lifting or other physical requirement. Hegwine interviewed for the position with Fibre employees Carlene Cox and Ron Samples on February 16, 2001. Fibre had no documented job description for the position at that time. During the interview, Samples told Hegwine that the position had a 25- pound lifting requirement. After watching a series of videos and receiving documents outlining Fibre’s employ-ment policies, Hegwine met with Cox. During this meeting, Hegwine disclosed her pregnancy. Cox called Hegwine and offered her the position on February 21, 2001, contingent on Hegwine’s suc-cessful completion of a physical exam. Hegwine accepted the offer and was given a start date of March 1, 2001. Two days later, Hegwine completed her physical at the office of Dr. Ostrander, Fibre’s medical director. As part of the exam, Hegwine was required to complete a medical history form that inquired as to her pregnancy status. Hegwine truth-fully disclosed that she was pregnant. In response, Ostrander gave Hegwine a medical release form and told her that she must have it completed by her personal physician as a condition of her employ-ment. Hegwine took this form to her physician, Dr. Herron, who completed it without being aware of any physical requirements related to Hegwine’s prospective position at Fibre. Herron indicated on the form that Hegwine could lift between 20 and 30 pounds and could pull or push up to 40 pounds. On March 16, 2001, Cox called Hegwine and informed her that Fibre was “ withdrawing [ its] offer of employment ” because her “ availability” did not permit her “ to perform the job.” May an employer inquire about pregnancy status during a preemployment medical examination? Do you believe that Fibre retracted it’s offer of employ-ment because Hegwine was pregnant? How should the court rule? [ Stacy L. Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Company, Inc., 172 P. 3d 688 ( 2007).]
