Response Essay Writing Help – Response to John Sorrell

Response Essay Writing Help – Response to John Sorrell

Response Essay Writing Help – Response to John Sorrell

Response Essay Writing Help

John Sorrell
Assignment 9
  1. Respond to the The Can I Be Sued situations.

Can I Be Sued?

  1. A supervisor tells a worker that the worker can't take off an hour early every Friday afternoon to visit his sick mother.

No, the supervisor could not be sued. If the employee filled out a form under the FMLA act then the employer could be sued if the leave was approved.

  1. An employer suggests to an employee that it would be best for the employee's career to have the employee's planned adoption of a child to coincide with the company's annual two-week summer shut down.

Suggesting is not technically illegal. Had the employer denied all leave for the employee during the adoption this action would be illegal and the employer could be sued. Under FMLA act an employee could take time off, un-paid, to complete and participate in an adoption.

  1. A company sets a policy that leaves years coincide with calendar years. The company approves an employee's leave request for the last 12 weeks of 1999 to care for a sick spouse but denies the employees request to be on leave the first 12 weeks of 2000.

Yes, the company could be sued. For the fact that the company set their policy to coincide with the calendar year. The employee was not in the wrong by requesting subsequent leave.

  1. After coming off a 12-week child birth leave, an employee is told that they no longer have a job because the replacement is working out very well.

Yes, this is a sue-able offense. The employer is not required to give the employee the same job but is required to give the employee a job of similar ranking and same pay when they return from leave.

  1. During an interview, an employer asks if the applicant is planning on having any more children.

Yes this is a punishable offense and can be sued for asking something of personal status within the job interview.

  1. A company tells a male employee that if the employee is going to take off for the birth of an expectant child that the employee has to take off time in whole week increments.

I don’t believe this is a sue-able offense. If the company has made it an official policy and is in the paperwork that the employee signs upon employment.

  1. A supervisor suggests that an employee not be selected for a certain line production job because the employer has cancer and will probably miss a lot of work for doctor's appointments.

If the employee could prove such incident, this would be greatly punishable and the supervisor could most definitely be sued for such action.

  1. An employer tells the employee that the employee cannot take off 12 weeks unless the employee gives up vacations for the next 3 years. The company has a 4 week a year vacation policy.

This could go both ways, they supervisor may not be in the right by giving such ultimatums however it’s not ethical to revoke three years of vacation because of the vacation policy. The employee could search other ways to accomplish the 12 weeks’ vacation under FMLA if it was necessary.

  1. An employer is told that the employee's perfect attendance bonus will be lost if they take off to care for their sick child.

Yes, this is a sue able offense. Declining an employee the right to care for their sick child and using personal vacation and leave days would be an offense. The company would most likely handle the issue though.

  1. An employee is not permitted to take off 3 days to recuperate from complications after having a tummy tuck.

Yes, this would be grounds for a law suit. Any complications from minor surgery could be damaging and harmful. Even though this is an elective procedure the complications are still something that has to be addressed. The employer would be at fault for any continued damage if they required the employee to return to work before medically cleared.

  1. Answer the following: Why would an employer want the employee to double dip time off, e.g., use FMLA concurrently with vacation or sick leave?

An employer would benefit having an employee “double dip” into time off because the employee would not be taking extra days off just the paid leave which would a. decrease the time off the employee has when they return, and b. save the employer from having more empty slots for an extended period of time.


  1. Look up your state’s workers’ compensation law. Familiarize yourself with its aspects, e.g., conditions, duration, and monetary amounts, most applicable to employees and their supervisors.  Summarize the worker’s compensation laws in your state (include key points and terms).

Utah Workman’s compensations laws are pretty much the same as all other states. There are very few differences. An injury must be reported immediately but the individual does a total of 180 days to report the incident. The individual is required to see a physician and have documentation of the visit within seven days of the initial injury or report of incident. Coverage for compensation can include temporary to full permanent disability leading to supplement of lost wages. The Workman’s compensation fund will cover a multitude of expenses including burial and dependent fees, mileage to and from medical offices, doctor fees, and supplement of lost wages.

  1. How do FMLA, worker’s compensation, and other laws affect the industrial supervisor?

While the laws may not directly affect the supervisor they do indirectly affect the industrial supervisor. With noncompliance the supervisor can find themselves in the front line and be sued. The industrial supervisor, as any supervisor, must keep record of all injuries and incidents. For any reason, if the supervisor doesn’t comply with the regulations set forth by the legal documentation they supervisor could be under scrutiny.


Response to John Sorrell,
 I believe that most of the situations are “Cab I be Sued “situations if we look closely at the FMLA Act policies. The one with the tummy tuck operation was slightly confusing because the employee had personal reasons to undergo the operation,

No Comments

Post a Reply