Hindering Job
Retention, Creation’
1)
Lipscomb v.
The
case involved interpretation of an employment manual and policy.
The court ruled that any ambiguity in an employer’s policies goes to
the benefit of the employee. This
poses significant new challenges on employers and exposes them to potentially
unlimited opportunities for lawsuits.
This
case involved forcing an insurance company to provide coverage even though the
policyholder had not specifically bought the coverage.
The court ruled that unless something is specifically excluded, then a
carrier may be liable to provide coverage. The
decision greatly broadened the overall liability that an insurance carrier could
have in
In
this case, the Supreme Court refused to allow for a retrial of a case after new
evidence was presented regarding the plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation
in a medical malpractice case, which resulted in a multi-million-dollar
judgment. In doing this, the court
weakens efforts to forestall the filing of fraudulent claims and, ultimately,
encourages abuse of our judicial system.
In
this landmark case, the Supreme Court created an unprecedented “judge-made”
law by establishing a “no proof, no problem” standard for claimants who
allege they may have been exposed to hazardous substances and might possibly
have health effects in the future. The
business community points to this case as one of the most far-reaching and
egregious examples of an activist court. The
case has become a red flag for businesses wanting to locate or expand in
This
case involved a Workers’ Comp claim that had been submitted after the
expiration of a filing period of an established regulatory deadline.
In spite of this, the Supreme Court ruled to allow the appeal and
ultimately issued the award. The
main issue with this case is that, even after a legislative “fix” had been
enacted to clarify this filing deadline, the Supreme Court still ruled in a 3-2
opinion to invalidate the statutory fix and issue the award.
The court, thereby, issued a “veto” and usurped the expressed will of
the Legislature.
This
case involved forcing an insurance company to provide coverage for a claim where
no policy provisions were in effect nor any premiums for these provisions had
been paid. In making this decision,
the court increased greatly insurance liability costs and, thereby, added to
higher insurance premiums for
This
case allowed for an employee to receive monetary damages from an employer
without having to prove actual damages. This
is another example of “judge-made” law and exposes employers to potential
lawsuits and monetary damages when embroiled in disputes with employees.
8)
Thomas W.
This
case involves an insurance claims adjustor who was held to be personally liable
for actions of the company. This decision now exposes a worker to being sued and
personally liable just for doing his or her job.
The
court found that an employer cannot discharge an employee for falsely claiming
on an employment application to have a valid driver’s license, even when the
job was to perform driving duties. This
decision undermines an employer’s ability to provide for safety, legality and
employment-at-will in the workplace.
10)
Benson v. AJR, #31542 (2004)
This
case involved the discharge of a supervisor who failed a drug test during
working hours, and his cocaine amount was three times the level to impair an
average person. The court ruled that
the employee had not been dishonest. This
decision greatly undermines an employer’s ability to maintain a safe and
drug-free workplace, much less enforce legitimate and proper company policies.