Although the Irish are known for the gift of gab, they also recognize that sometimes, the less said the better.
Client-centered service in a general civil practice, with an emphasis in employment law matters, trial and appellate work, and general business advice. The term "business torts" has been coined in recent years to generally describe a number of different types of claims, usually involving economic and business losses caused by some sort of wrongful conduct, other than a breach of contract.
Most often the terms is used to refer to claims such as fraud, misrepresentation, inducement to breach contract, interference with business relations, unfair competition, trademark or trade name infringement, and the like.
Sometimes the term is also used to refer to certain fiduciary duty claims, good faith and fair dealing claims, and even RICO claims. Sometimes the claims and theories underlying "business torts" intersect with employer-employee relations and the field of employment law.
In fact, there seems to be no limit to the unique claims and theories asserted by and against employers and employees, or asserted between employers concerning employees.
This article will focus upon three particular types of business tort claims in the context of employment law: Fraud and misrepresentation can arise in various contexts in the employment relationship. Applicants and employees can falsify their credentials in order to gain employment or promotions.
By the same turn, employers sometimes use promises to lure prospective employees to change jobs. In both cases, trickery and deceit are used to induce another to make an employment decision, and the result could be an employment-based business tort claim.
A Deception by the Employer. Misrepresentation by employers can lead to liability, particularly when the employer has misrepresented something to a prospective employee in the course of the hiring process. In that case, former pro football player Phil McConkey was being recruited by an insurance brokerage firm to leave his current employment and accept a similar job in a different state.
He had heard rumors that the company might be the target of a takeover, so he asked the CEO about the rumors.
The CEO denied them, even though in actuality the takeover process was already underway. Seven months after McConkey left his old job and took a job with the brokerage, the acquisition took place and he lost his position. AON Corporation, N. Other courts have reached similar results.
Could something like that happen to a Tennessee employer? While it appears that this statutory cause of action has been rarely used by Tennessee employees, employers should be aware that it exists. Besides this statute, Tennessee employees might be able to state a cause of action against employers for common law fraud or negligent misrepresentation, depending upon the circumstances.
The employee would need to be able to prove the requisite elements of these causes of action, but there is nothing which would make them any less viable in the employment context. Moreover, since the claims are based in tort, it would make no difference whether the employee was "at will" or under a contract of employment for a specific term.
Employees may find it difficult to prove that an employer knew its statements were false at that time they were made, but if that can be proved as in the McConkey case, discussed abovethe potential liability could include punitive damages.
For example, in Jarrett v. In the following ten years, the company prospered. Just before the employee was to be made part owner, the employer sold the business, and the employee was out of luck.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. Sometimes the employee who is induced to change jobs by misrepresentations of the employer may sue under a theory of promissory estoppel or implied contract, and some Tennessee courts have shown a willingness to consider such claims, even when the employee was "at will.tort_law - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online.
any information or insights he possesses bearing upon why the deal might be to the corporation's disadvantage. a peer review committee of a hospital may have the responsibility of unearthing and discussing even flimsy allegations about professional misconduct.
and. A Peer Review of Tort Cases Involving Employees Posing a Danger to Others ( words, 4 pages) There are some cases where torts are filed because of the danger an employee poses to the general public or fellow employees.
The payment or settlement of a tort claim by a VA Medical Center Director, Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Assistant US Attorney, or damages awarded by a federal court judge trigger the paid tort claim review process which includes the panel review.
The panel presentation will be held from am and will focus on " Case Law Updates" which will include an in-depth review of notable bankruptcy court, district court, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, court of appeals and U.S. Supreme Court cases from the past year. Employers and employees have ethical responsibilities towards themselves and the institution and must be answerable and accountable for their actions.
Rated 5 /5 based on 26 review. How priorisation of ict in education; A peer review of tort cases involving employees posing a danger to others; Discursive psychology; Negotiate and plan a.
of conduct) when such actions result in injury to others. In a school/classroom setting, tort law is the most common area of the law that subjects teachers to personal liability.1 In most education-related civil lawsuits there are two main categories of tort liability relevant to the professional educator—Intentional and ˙egligent Torts.