Analyzing Liability – CapraTek Employee Thomas Lee
Analyzing Liability – CapraTek Employee Thomas Lee
Analyzing Liability
The purpose of this analysis is to examine a complaint letter from CapraTek employee Thomas Lee. It will identify potential legal liabilities based on U.S. laws relevant to the complaint letter. It will discuss the potential harm to the company, employees, and workplace culture if the complaint goes unattended. Furthermore, this analysis will identify preventative measures to avoid legal liability for the company and suggest viable legal defenses if the company is required to defend this complaint, including the specifics of this complaint letter. Finally, this analysis will address the ethical principles and implications of the complaint letter.
Summary of the Complaint
The complaint letter is by Mr. Thomas Lee about his disappointment with the company for failing to ensure a secure workplace for individuals from all backgrounds and nationalities. Mr. Lee is an American of Chinese origin who complains of racial discrimination at the workplace following the accusation that he brought COVID-19 to the workplace because he is Chinese. The employee presented a verbal complaint to the supervisor, who failed to listen to him and questioned Mr. Lee’s customs and beliefs. Mr. Lee says the workplace is hostile and intimidating, and he has received threats from other employees who have singled him out for allegations of spreading the virus on the basis of his origin and ethnicity, sending him negative messages through texts, emails, social media and telephone. Mr. Lee continues to point out that several people have died after exposure to Covid-19, insisting the company’s judgment and preparedness was the primary reason.
Furthermore, another letter by Karen Small, a security guard, confirms the allegation. She points out that she probably acquired the virus from Mr. Lee, who the company allowed into the premise, hence the disease spread. Mr. Lee is an American Citizen who has lived in Alabama and cannot contemplate why he is being singled out for spreading the virus merely because he is Chinese. Mr. Lee says the company has done nothing to address the situation and lacks leadership, which encourages the behavior. He is considering a lawsuit if the issue is not dealt with.
Associated U.S. laws or regulations and how they are relevant to the identified liability
First Mr. Lee complains of racial discrimination at the workplace, which Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses. This Act makes it illegal to discriminate against people on the mere basis of their color, race, religion, national origin, or sex. For example, Hahn et al. (2018) provide that this Act is fundamental in ensuring racial and ethnic equity and eliminating discriminatory behavior, implying the Act corresponds to the identified liability of preventing racial discrimination based on color, race, gender, or nationality. The law protects all employees from retaliation if they decide to forward a claim on discrimination at the workplace.
Mr. Lee also points out that most people acquired and were exposed to the virus because of the company’s lapse in judgment and preparedness, addressed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Act requires employers to keep the workplace free from hazardous conditions, stressing employees’ rights to information regarding the dangers in their job. For example, in Michaels & Wagner (2020), employers are legally required to offer an environment that protects employees from COVID-19 per OSHA provisions. Michaels & Wagner (2020) argue that only employers can make the workplace safe by enforcing OSHA guidelines, and a failure to do so is considered a non-adherence and non-compliance. This scenario implies that the OSHA is relevant to the identified liability of keeping employees safe from Covid-19 at the workplace. The law also protects employees from being punished if they decide to exercise their rights per OSHA.
The potential harm to the company, its employees, and its workplace culture that could result from a lawsuit emanating from the selected complaint
Suppose the company is found liable for non-compliance with Title VII. In that case, it could face penalties for intentional discrimination, enforced as either compensatory or punitive damage up to a maximum provided by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 according to the number of employees in the company. The company would have to pay either back pay, compensatory damages, or punitive damages. For instance, in Lund (2020), the case, titled Bostock v. Claton County, involves the Supreme Court upholding non-discrimination based on race and sex, against which an employer is liable and faces paying compensatory damages. This case implies that if the company is found liable under the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it would have to pay compensatory damages to Mr. Lee.
Confirming liability would affect other employees, especially those of other nationalities, who have experienced the same and may also choose to forward their case. This liability would label the workplace as toxic, discriminatory, and lacking diversity. Suppose the company is found liable under OSHA for failing to protect its employees from Covid-19 exposure. In that case, it could face penalties based on the type of violation, ranging between $15,625 and $156,259 per violation. In this case, dealing with litigations for OSHA non-compliance will be costly for the company. For instance, Sadeh et al. (2022) address the cost impact of Covid-19 OSHA citations and specify that fines for non-compliance and regulatory violations significantly impact a company. If the company is found liable, it means that the company would also be liable for all other Covid-19-related cases, amounting to millions of dollars in fines and compensatory damages that would be detrimental to the company’s finances. It would also mean the work environment is unsafe, and the company cannot protect its most valuable resource, leading to a demoralized workforce.
Realistic preventative measures that could have avoided legal liability
The company must promote workplace diversity by developing and enforcing anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies that condemn discrimination based on race, color, gender, ability or disability, sexual orientation, and other identifiers to protect employees from bullying and harassment. Cross-cultural or cultural sensitivity training and education would be necessary to ensure a discrimination-free environment. For example, Shepherd (2019) offers evidence supporting cross-cultural training, including diversity training, anti-racism raining, and micro-aggression training, effectiveness in enhancing cultural competence, safety, humility, and intelligence, which are integral in ensuring a workplace free from discrimination, harassment, and intimidation.
The training would include all employees because there are allegations of lapse in conduct and professionalism among low-level employees and supervisors. It would ensure that all employees respect cultural and racial differences, act professionally in conduct and speech, refuse to instigate, participate, or condone discrimination and harassment, and avoid race-based or culturally offensive acts, including humor and pranks (Shepherd, 2019). Systematic factors contribute to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. Therefore, the company should develop an effective internal complaints procedure and address such issues internally to avoid legal liability. These procedures, coupled with dispute resolution systems, can help prevent discrimination and harassment, as provided by Dobbin and Kalev (2020), who offer guidelines for making discrimination and harassment systems better.
Individuals and departments that would need to be involved in the proposed measures
Mr. Lee complained of harassment daily, from a fellow security guard to the supervisor. This case implies a lack of cultural sensitivity and awareness across employees of all levels. Therefore, all employees, including supervisors and managers, will be involved in the proposed measures, particularly the cross-cultural or cultural sensitivity training, and education. The Human Resources Department will be involved because it is responsible for outlining disciplinary action policies and procedures to respond to actions or behavior that violate the company’s policies. It will help formulate and enforce anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and formalize the internal complaints procedure to orient all employees on the code of discipline.
(Analyzing Liability – CapraTek Employee Thomas Lee)
Viable legal defenses the company could assert in a litigation context to defeat the complainant’s claims
The complainant must prove that he experienced racial discrimination at the workplace. It appears to be a serious case because the allegations are confirmed by other complaints, implying that employees think Mr. Lee spread the virus under the company’s watch. The company would also have to prove beyond doubt that Mr. Lee did not experience racial discrimination or that if he did, it was unintentional because only intentional racial discrimination is ruled as non-compliance. The company can also counter the claim by stating a lack of substantial evidence indicating that Mr. Lee experienced racial discrimination. The company has to show current policies that protect employees from racial discrimination and how it enforces these policies to respond to complaints. If the company proves that Mr. Lee indeed brought the virus to the workplace, it can avoid legal liability. In the interview transcript, interviewees provide that the company developed safety rules and measures per CDC to protect employees from Covid-19 exposure. It has to prove this claim with substantial evidence to avoid legal liability, given that other complaint letters point to the lapse of judgment and preparedness as the primary cause of over 70% of infections and several wrongful deaths. Lastly, the company has to convince the jury that employees acquired the virus outside the workplace, which is beyond the employer’s control, to avoid legal liability.
Ethical implications of the scenario and measures that address ethical issues
Harassment and discrimination are among the most significant ethical issues companies like Capra Tek face today, especially due to the increased workforce diversities and individual differences. Harassment and discrimination occurring at the workplace can be catastrophic to companies like Capra Tek financially and reputationally. Racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace are perceived as ethical failures due to cultures or practices of disrespect, unfairness, and harm (Elias & Paradies, 2021). It violates human rights due to an unjustified distinction created by the nature of the work environment or policy failures. Racial discrimination negatively impacts the work environment and the company at large. Employees harassed and singled out by other employees, including managers and supervisors, feel unheard and unprotected by the company. As a result, it creates a toxic environment, forming divides between employees that are detrimental to the company. Employees of other racial and ethnic minorities or nationalities fear engaging or collaborating meaningfully when the company does not protect them from harassment and discrimination. It would mean increased absenteeism, turnover, poor performance, loss of income and litigation, and damaged relationships with other companies that employ an anti-racist or anti-discrimination approach. If the case is forwarded to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it would have legal ramifications for the company, which is undesirable and harmful to the company’s reputation.
(Analyzing Liability – CapraTek Employee Thomas Lee)
It is paramount companies like Capra Tek consider robust measures to curb ethical issues like racial discrimination and harassment. The company should be aware of the primary ethical principles that guide professional conduct, including justice and fairness, respect of persons, responsibility, and protection from harm. The company should also be aware of the anti-discrimination laws and regulations like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protect employee from unjust treatment in the workplace. Additionally, companies like Capra Tek can adopt the ILPA Industry Code of Conduct Guidelines that provides all individuals to be treated equally in an organization, and a company should not tolerate discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, family status, disability, marital status, or political beliefs (Institutional Limited Partners Association, 2018).
The company is faced with enforcing these ethical principles, anti-harassment and discrimination laws, and the code of conduct guidelines as measures to ensure ethical practice in the workplace. To curb discrimination and racism, protect employees from bullying and harassment, and promote a diverse and inclusive environment where employees respect each other’s differences, the company should apply ethical decision-making or preventive measure framework. The Ethical Work Climate 2.0 theory by Weber and Opoku-Dakwa (2022) presents an ethical framework for Capra Tek. Adopting this model would help establish an ethical workplace, setting up the company to successfully address employee complaints, assess legal liability, and promote ethical decision-making (Weber & Opoku-Dakwa, 2022). The model sets the antecedents that shape the expectations for ethical behavior within the company and fosters employees’ ability to implement benevolent and principled climates, which help foster organizational commitment, job satisfaction, performance, well-being, and ethical behavior.
References
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2020). Making discrimination and harassment complaint systems better. WHAT WORKS? 24.
Elias, A., & Paradies, Y. (2021). The Costs of Institutional Racism and its Ethical Implications for Healthcare. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 18(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-10073-0
Hahn, R. A., Truman, B. I., & Williams, D. R. (2018). Civil rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health equity: health care, education, employment, and housing in the United States. SSM-population health, 4, 17-24.
Institutional Limited Partners Association. (2018). Code of conduct: harassment, discrimination and workplace violence: Guidelines for the private equity ecosystem.
Lund, N. (2020). Unleashed and Unbound: Living Textualism in Bostock v. Clayton County. Clayton County (July 14, 2020). Federalist Society Review, 21, 20-15.
Michaels, D., & Wagner, G. R. (2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and worker safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jama, 324(14), 1389-1390.
Sadeh, H., Mirarchi, C., Shahbodaghlou, F., & Pavan, A. (2022). Predicting the trends and cost impact of COVID-19 OSHA citations on US construction contractors using machine learning and simulation. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management (ahead-of-print).
Shepherd, S. M. (2019). Cultural awareness workshops: limitations and practical consequences. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1-10.
Weber, J., & Opoku-Dakwa, A. (2022). Ethical Work Climate 2.0: A Normative Reformulation of Victor and Cullen’s 1988 Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18.
