REVIEW THE FIVE CASES AND STATE YOUR OPINION AND ANALYSIS.
1. Workers’ Compensation. Angus, as a condition of his employment, lived in a mobile home owned by his employer, Dill Industries. The mobile home was located on the grounds of Dill’s plant and was purchased by Dill to house the Angus family because it wanted Angus to “maintain a constant presence on the premises.” Although Angus ordinarily worked out of an office located in a different building, the mobile home had a telephone, so Angus would be able to contact company drivers and customers as needed. One day, Angus returned to the mobile home and awaited the arrival of a truck on company business. About fifteen minutes after Angus had arrived at the mobile home, and while the family was eating dinner, a tornado struck. The tornado left Angus’s wife dead and Angus and his daughter severely injured. Angus filed a workers’ compensation claim against Dill, alleging that his injuries “arose out of his employment.” Among other things, Dill argued that the injury did not occur within the course of employment, because Angus was not working but eating dinner with his family when the tornado struck. How should the court decide?
2. Employment at Will. Adams worked as a delivery truck driver for Cochran. Adams refused to drive a truck that lacked a re¬quired inspection sticker and was subsequently fired as a result. Adams was an at-will employee, and Cochran contended that because there was no written em-ployment contract stating otherwise, Cochran was entitled to discharge Adams at will—that is, for cause or no cause. Adams sought to recover $7,094 in lost wages and $200,000 in damages for the “humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress” that he had suffered as a result of being fired from his job. Under what legal doctrines, or exceptions to those doctrines, might Adams be able to recover damages from Cochran? Discuss and explain your reasoning.
3. Workers’ Compensation. Linda, employed as a state traffic officer by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), suffered an injury at home, off duty, while practicing the standing long jump. The jump is a required component of the CHP’s annual physical performance fitness test. Linda filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The CHP and the workers’ compensation appeals board denied her claim. Linda appealed to a state appellate court. What is the requirement for granting a workers’ compensation claim? Should Linda’s claim be granted?
4. Wrongful Discharge. Stephen, a pilot for Simmons Airline, criticized the safety of the aircraft Simmons used and warned the airline about possible safety problems. Simmons took no action. After one of the planes crashed, Stephen appeared on the television program Good Morning America to discuss his safety concerns. The same day, he refused to allow employees of Simmons to search his personal bags before a flight that he was scheduled to work. Claiming insubordination, the airline terminated him. Stephen filed a suit in a federal district court claiming retaliatory discharge for his public criticism and that this discharge violated the public policy of providing for safe air travel. Simmons responded that an employee who “goes public” with his or her concerns should not be protected by the law. Will the court agree with Simmons?
5. Defenses to Employment Discrimination. Dorothea worked as an inspector for Hercules for six years when her employment was terminated. Dorothea, who was over forty years of age, sued Hercules for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. While preparing for trial, Hercules learned that Dorothea had made several misrepresentations on her application when she applied for the job. Dorothea misrepresented her age, did not disclose a previous employer, falsely represented that she had never applied for work with Hercules before, and untruthfully stated that she had completed two quarters of study at a technical college. On her application for group insurance coverage, she misrepresented the age of her son, who would otherwise have been ineligible for coverage as her dependent. Hercules defended the suit by stating that if it known of the lies, it would have terminated her employment anyway. What should the court decide? Discuss.