Midterm Exam Employment Law 2009 Research Paper

Midterm Exam Employment Law 2009 - Research Paper sheathThe company was a large international firm in San Francisco with almost 5000 employees. Jami had given the interview with the employment group of 6 people. One of them was John Clark, a V.P and the others were Human Resources V.P, V.P in charge of sales and two other supervisors. During the interview, she noticed many of the unwanted things i.e. all of them in the selection panel kept a special eye on her physical features and was asked all kinds of personal and absurd questions just before the interview was going to complete. Despite this unfamiliar circumstance, she joined the reflect with an insurance benefit of 401K plan and annual salary of US$80,000.00. She was also said that after three months of probation period she could be terminated with a binding cause. After her efficient work of six months, she was maintained a lunch by Mr. John Clark, V.P. In the dinner, Clark said that the company needs another V.P just rese mbling Jami. In addition, he also offered Jami to spend the weekend with him in Yosemite so that the details of the plan basin be discussed. When they visited the place together, Jami came to know that Clark was having an eye on her from the very first day and she would be provided with name and fame if she agrees to all the unwanted offers of Clark. When she refused to the offer she had to go through a lot of harassment in the office. Her doing was considered to be poor and she was not allowed a leave for her mothers surgery. Irrespective of all these adversities, she went to visit her mother without a leave notice. On returning, she was demoted to a supervisor and had a decline in salary of US$40,000.00 per year. After all these occurrences, she lodged a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity focus (EEOC) and indeed sued the company to the Federal Court. It can be viewed that all workplace related issues in the form of cases are handled by the Equal Employment Opportu nity Commission (EEOC) of the US (State Human Resources Manual, Title VII of the Civil Rights suffice). According to the case provided, Jami Jensen has been the victim of sexual harassment by the Vice President of the company, wherein she was working. When an offer was provided to Jami and not accepted by her, the V.P. threatened to sue her from the company and also lessened her salary to a huge proportion. The V.P. also kept a direct that in order to avail the facilities of the company, she must take back the case and in return, she would be rewarded with a higher position in the company and a greater hike in her salary. However, she did not accept the condition and decided to file a complaint against the company in the federal court of the US. Jami can also file complains for violating the privacy rights by the employer during the interview process in accordance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hence, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of the American law can be applied in the case of Jami Jensen. APPLICABLE TORT CLAIMS In the United States, the federal tort claim provides remuneration for the damages made to a property or any sort of injury arising from the activities perform by the federal officer or the employer (United States Court,