DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

Name

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper

Write My Essay For Me

Capella university

DB-FPX8410 Addressing Problems in Human Resources and Compliance

Prof. Name

Date

Critical Incident Analysis

This critical incident analysis will investigate complaints of wrongful death involving six employees. It will delve into potential omissions that might have played a role in these complaints. Additionally, it will assess the potential legal consequences for the business in accordance with the law. This evaluation will assess the skills of the interviewer and the level of legal risk associated with each complaint (García-Montoya & Mahoney, 2020).

Identification of Actions, Errors, and Omissions

After a comprehensive examination of the six wrongful death claims filed against CapraTek, it has become apparent that several actions, mistakes, and oversights may have impacted the potential legal accountability of the company. In the case of Michael Haskill, who tragically lost his life in a machinery-related accident, it is unlikely that CapraTek can be held legally responsible, given that Workers’ Compensation insurance covers the injury. Nevertheless, for the remaining five claims, CapraTek may potentially be exposed to legal liability under a range of statutes, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Johan & Ariawan, 2021).

For instance, consider the case of Richard Howell, who tragically lost his life to COVID-19. CapraTek’s potential legal responsibility could be linked to its adherence to OSHA regulations and standards. If CapraTek fails to ensure a safe and healthy working environment, which includes effective communication of its COVID-19 policies, it may face legal repercussions under OSHA. CapraTek’s failure to establish and communicate clear COVID-19 safety measures may result in potential legal repercussions under OSHA. This oversight violates OSHA standards, putting employees at risk of COVID-19 infection and contributing to potential wrongful death claims (Ekong et al., 2023).

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

Similarly, in the situation involving Boris Senty CapraTek might be liable under OSHA if it neglects to provide sufficient safety measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to its employees, thereby violating OSHA standards. CapraTek’s failure to provide adequate safety measures and PPE for essential workers during the pandemic could lead to violations of OSHA standards. This oversight increases the risk of employee illness and potential legal actions against the company (Ekong et al., 2023).

Turning to Bhashar Quan, whose demise was also COVID-19-related, CapraTek’s potential liability may be determined by the guidelines outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If CapraTek designated Quan as an essential worker and required on-site work without making reasonable accommodations under the ADA or other pertinent laws, it could face legal consequences for his COVID-19-related passing. The misclassification of essential workers’ reasonable accommodations exposes CapraTek to potential legal issues under the ADA. This oversight may have violated ADA requirements, contributing to wrongful death claims (Hoffman, 2023).

Critical Incident Analysis

In the case of James Clarke, Sr., CapraTek’s potential legal liability, might also be governed by OSHA regulations and the guidance provided by other governmental entities. If, for instance, local authorities recommended a plant shutdown due to COVID-19 concerns, but CapraTek refused to comply, they might be subject to OSHA violations and other legal actions under relevant laws. CapraTek’s refusal to comply with local authorities’ recommendations for plant shutdown may result in OSHA violations and legal actions. Non-compliance demonstrates a disregard for employee safety, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes (Johnson, 2020).

Lastly, regarding Susan Harewood, who was not a CapraTek employee but a delivery driver on their premises, CapraTek’s potential liability could be influenced by a variety of laws, including OSHA and the ADA. Suppose Harewood contracted COVID-19 while on CapraTek’s premises due to inadequate safety measures or unclear communication of policies. In that case, CapraTek might be exposed to legal action under these laws, as well as possible negligence claims. CapraTek’s negligence in protecting non-employee visitors like Susan Harewood may lead to negligence claims and possible violations of OSHA and ADA regulations. This oversight could contribute to legal actions against the company (Litor, 2022).

Numerous actions, oversights, and missteps by CapraTek’s management and HR department in the “DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis” could have played a role in the six wrongful death claims against the company. The extent of potential legal liability depends on the unique circumstances of each case, including factors like essential worker status, the adequacy of safety measures and PPE, and the clarity of communication regarding COVID-19 policies (Chan, 2020).

Potential Legal Liabilities

Unprepared employers run the risk of facing lawsuits such as workers’ compensation claims, invasion of privacy allegations, discrimination charges, unfair labor practices, and negligence lawsuits, including those initiated by government agencies like EEOC and OSHA. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and mandates reasonable accommodations for qualified employees unless it poses an undue hardship. CapraTek’s misclassification of essential workers without considering reasonable accommodations could lead to ADA violations and contribute to wrongful death claims, particularly in the case of Bhashar Quan (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

For instance, there is the case of James Clark, an employee at a Georgia plant. His family might be able to convince a jury that his infection resulted from regular exposure to workplace conditions and environments. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) sets safety and health standards, which CapraTek’s potential violation may stem from, resulting in legal consequences, notably in the cases of Richard Howell, Boris Senty, and James Clarke, Sr.

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

However, the family needs to meet two critical criteria: firstly, they cannot explain why the general public is not exposed to the virus, and secondly, it is improbable that individuals outside the workplace would contract the disease. To qualify for coverage, the employee must demonstrate that the illness arose unexpectedly during a specific process or trade to which they were exposed (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) hints at potential legal exposure if CapraTek fails to comply with FMLA requirements in relation to medical leave. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidelines and is referenced in the context of CapraTek’s potential liability, particularly in Quan’s case, regarding reasonable accommodations as recommended by the EEOC. All of these aspects are vital for evaluating CapraTek’s legal accountability amid the six wrongful death claims (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

Allegations

Furthermore, CapraTek might be accused of not enforcing CDC and OSHA guidelines, potentially leading to claims of negligence or recklessness. In their defense, it could be argued that they adhered to Governor Kemp’s executive order, which mandated non-critical essential businesses to operate with reduced staff and adhere to specified COVID-19 prevention measures. The defense might also contend that the company adhered to relevant laws and regulations to protect itself from legal liability. Georgia laws serve as a shield against legal liability, asserting that CapraTek failed to adhere to CDC and OSHA regulations and chose to resolve the issue through non-legal means (Dannecker & Schröder, 2023).

The Severity of the Legal Risks

After reviewing each complaint, it is clear that the level of legal risk varies for each case. The extent of CapraTek’s liability could be influenced by the policies and guidelines established by different government entities. In the case of Michael Haskill, CapraTek’s potential legal liability is likely limited since Workers’ Compensation insurance covers the injury, and claims of negligence against employers are typically prohibited under workers’ compensation laws in all states. CapraTek may choose to defend itself by showing compliance with OSHA guidelines and regulations to minimize potential fines (Kuehne, 2022).

On the other hand, the Harewood claim, which asserts that CapraTek failed to close the plant in response to local officials’ recommendations, resulting in the plaintiff’s exposure to COVID-19 and subsequent death, could have serious legal repercussions. CapraTek’s management and HR department might be held responsible for not implementing adequate safety measures and communication policies related to COVID-19, potentially violating OSHA regulations and other government guidelines. CapraTek may argue that it adhered to all the guidelines and protocols pertaining to COVID-19 and that the plaintiff’s contact with the infected employee was beyond the company’s control (G. Mujtaba & A. Kaifi, 2023).

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

The Quan claim raises concerns about CapraTek’s compliance with OSHA, EEOC, and other government guidelines regarding COVID-19 safety measures. CapraTek’s management may be found liable for not providing employees with adequate safety measures and personal protective equipment (PPE). CapraTek could assert a defense by demonstrating compliance with federal or state guidelines for COVID-19 safety measures and argue that, as an essential worker, Quan was required to be on-site. The company followed all the guidelines to ensure the safety of its employees (G. Mujtaba & A. Kaifi, 2023).

The Clarke lawsuit, which seeks damages exceeding $2.575 million, carries significant legal implications for both CapraTek’s management and its HR department. CapraTek may potentially be held liable for not heeding local authorities’ advice to close the plant, potentially violating COVID-19 government guidelines. However, the company might argue that it was in compliance with these guidelines and made the decision to stay operational based on its assessment of the situation (Lobschat et al., 2019).

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

As for the Howell claim, the extent of legal riskdepends on whether CapraTek had adequate safety measures and communication policies in place regarding COVID-19. If the company failed to provide PPE or clearly communicate COVID-19 policies, it might be held liable under OSHA regulations. Conversely, CapraTek could assert that it followed all relevant guidelines and provided the necessary PPE and clear communication about COVID-19 policies (Johan & Ariawan, 2021).

Potential Actions to Address the Issue

CapraTek needs to carefully assess its policies and practices to minimize potential legal risks. It should ensure compliance with OSHA, ADA, FMLA, and EEOC guidelines and consider potential liabilities for both employees and non-employee visitors like Susan Harewood. Key areas to address include:

1. Worker Classification: CapraTek should review its classification of essential workers and ensure they are provided with reasonable accommodations as required by the ADA (Dannecker & Schröder, 2023).
2. Safety Measures and PPE: The company should ensure that all safety measures, including PPE, are adequate and comply with OSHA standards (Ekong et al., 2023).
3. Communication of Policies: Clear communication of COVID-19 policies and safety measures is crucial to ensure all employees and visitors are aware of the guidelines and protocols in place (Johnson, 2020).
4. Compliance with Local Authorities: CapraTek should adhere to recommendations from local authorities, particularly regarding plant closures and other safety measures to mitigate COVID-19 risks (Litor, 2022).

By addressing these areas, CapraTek can better protect itself from potential legal liabilities and ensure a safer working environment for its employees and visitors (Litor, 2022).

Conclusion

In conclusion, CapraTek must carefully evaluate its practices and policies to minimize potential legal risks. Compliance with OSHA, ADA, FMLA, and EEOC guidelines is essential, as is the consideration of potential liabilities for both employees and non-employee visitors. By addressing worker classification, safety measures, communication of policies, and compliance with local authorities, CapraTek can better protect itself from legal repercussions and ensure a safer working environment.

References

Chan, L. (2020). Workplace safety during the COVID-19 pandemic: Key legal considerations. Occupational Health Journal, 34(2), 102-113.

Dannecker, D., & Schröder, L. (2023). Legal liability and workplace safety in the era of COVID-19. Safety & Health Review, 45(1), 89-104.

Ekong, E., Okon, J., & Udoh, A. (2023). Ensuring workplace safety: Legal frameworks and compliance. Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, 29(3), 65-78.

García-Montoya, I., & Mahoney, S. (2020). Legal implications of workplace safety policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial Relations Journal, 41(4), 227-243.

G. Mujtaba, B., & A. Kaifi, B. (2023). Employer Liability and Risk Management in COVID-19. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 467-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04515-8

Hoffman, B. (2023). Navigating ADA Compliance During COVID-19. Employment Law Journal, 42(2), 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306121994688

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

Johnson, R. (2020). Workplace Safety and Legal Liability Amid the Pandemic. Journal of Safety Research, 72, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.11.002

Johan, R., & Ariawan, F. (2021). Legal Risks and Safety Compliance in the COVID-19 Workplace. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 34(1), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.252

Kuehne, G. (2022). Legal Risks in Managing COVID-19 Workplace Safety. International Journal of Employment Law, 29(4), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2021.2004236

Litor, D. (2022). Employer Duties and Responsibilities for Non-Employee Safety. Safety & Health Practitioner, 39(2), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079920973452

Lobschat, L., Kuehnl, C., & Beck, C. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Culture. Journal of Business Research, 104, 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.050

Piroșcă, G., Țurlea, E., & Dorobanțu, M. (2021). Employer Liability and Risk Management in the Context of COVID-19. Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine, 29(1), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.4323/rjlm.2021.51

The post DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis appeared first on NURSFPX.com.