Brief

on the Doctrinal Exception on Actions for RetaliatoryDamage to At-Will Employment RuleCase bow a leak :Edward D . HANSEN , Appellant v . HARRAH S , answering PaulD . LEWIS , Appellant , v . MGM GRAND HOTEL , RENO , INCRespondentSupreme Court of Nevada , 1984Case Facts :The cases d on appeal argon consolidated . Hansen and Lewis are at- ordain utilizeees under the employ of CDS Harrah s and Reno , MGM respectively , some(prenominal) self-insured employers . Upon file a claim for workmen s allowance , ascribable to work-related injuries , the state employers rejected the same . On hearing the merits of the claims it was intractable that Hansen and Lewis were empower to such compensation . Because of the decision laid ingest by the court were adverse to the interests of the employers , Hansen and Lewis were discharged from work for file a case Thereafter , the two employees d an put through for relatiative discharge asking for both compensatory and punitive handicap . withal , inasmuch as the retaliatory discharge exception for at-will employees was non moreover adopted as general practice nor act outed as virtue in Nevada , the trial courts dismissed both complaints with loss . jibe to the courts , the only remedy is to ask for the Legislature to enact a bill for such claimsIssue :Whether Nevada should adopt a field indemnity exception , rather than legislative , to the at will drill conventionalism with regards to the action for retaliatory discharge for filing a workmen s compensatory claim . Corollary , whether such action is an actionable tort governed by rules on torturous conductRule (s :1 . First , the at-will involvement rule is subject to limited exceptions based on sozzled public policy . However , the xistence of laws granting such exceptions does not span employees of auth entic remedies against tortuous behavior of ! their employer2 . Second , Nevada s workmen s compensation laws favour the secures of the employees who put up work-related injuries . It protects injured employees and their families or dep removeents3 . Third , actions for punitive damages may lie when employees can show malicious , heavy or fraudulent conduct by the employer accordinglyApplication :Petitioners Hansen and Lewis seek compensation because of the injuries they incurred in the course of their work . The employers brushed past the claims and at the exemplification where it is found that they should be compensated , the employer pink-slipped them . Such conducts of the employer to deflect giving compensation by terminating the involution of those who seek them queer the spirit and tenor of the Nevada employment laws . Their dictatorial or mayhap ill-motivated action shall make the laws that protect the employees inutile . It burdens the employees to choose whether to sojourn employment or risk organism fire d by filing a claim for compensation . In or so cases , the employee will choose to be silent and forgo his right for compensation because he king lose his job . On grounds that the employer decides on the subject field with malicious , fraudulent and oppressive intent , the court shall tone of voice in to provide measures to end the practice of unfair manipulation and unlawful labor practiceConclusion : two Trial...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay