DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

Student Name

Capella University

DB-FPX 8410 Addressing Problems in Human Resources and Compliance

Prof. Name:

Date

Critical Incident Analysis

This analysis will investigate complaints of wrongful death involving six employees, delving 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, evaluating the interviewer’s skills 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, several actions, mistakes, and oversights may have impacted the company’s potential legal accountability. For instance, 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 due to Workers’ Compensation insurance coverage. However, for the remaining five claims, CapraTek may be exposed to legal liability under statutes such as 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 example, in the case of Richard Howell, who died of COVID-19, CapraTek’s potential legal responsibility could be linked to its adherence to OSHA regulations and standards. If CapraTek failed to ensure a safe working environment and communicate COVID-19 policies effectively, it may face legal repercussions under OSHA (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 neglected to provide sufficient safety measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to its employees, violating 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 required Quan to work on-site without reasonable accommodations under the ADA, it could face legal consequences (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 other governmental guidelines. If local authorities recommended a plant shutdown due to COVID-19 concerns and CapraTek refused to comply, the company might be subject to OSHA violations and other legal actions (Johnson, 2020).

Lastly, regarding Susan Harewood, a delivery driver on CapraTek’s premises, CapraTek’s potential liability could be influenced by laws including OSHA and the ADA. If Harewood contracted COVID-19 due to inadequate safety measures or unclear policies, CapraTek might be exposed to legal action and negligence claims (Litor, 2022).

CapraTek’s management and HR department’s actions, oversights, and missteps could have contributed to the six wrongful death claims against the company. The extent of potential legal liability depends on factors such as essential worker status, safety measures, and COVID-19 policy communication (Chan, 2020).

Potential Legal Liabilities

Unprepared employers risk lawsuits such as workers’ compensation claims, invasion of privacy allegations, discrimination charges, unfair labor practices, and negligence lawsuits, including those from agencies like the EEOC and OSHA. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and mandates reasonable accommodations. CapraTek’s misclassification of essential workers without considering reasonable accommodations could lead to ADA violations, particularly in Quan’s case (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

For instance, James Clark’s family might argue his infection resulted from workplace exposure, potentially leading to OSHA violations and legal consequences, notably in Howell, Senty, and Clarke’s cases.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) also hints at potential legal exposure if CapraTek fails to comply with its requirements. The EEOC’s guidelines are particularly relevant in evaluating CapraTek’s liability, especially concerning reasonable accommodations (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

Allegations

CapraTek might be accused of not enforcing CDC and OSHA guidelines, potentially leading to negligence or recklessness claims. In defense, it could argue adherence to Governor Kemp’s executive order, which mandated non-critical essential businesses to operate with reduced staff and specified COVID-19 prevention measures (Dannecker & Schröder, 2023).

The Severity of the Legal Risks

The level of legal risk varies for each case. For Michael Haskill, CapraTek’s potential legal liability is likely limited due to Workers’ Compensation insurance. However, the Harewood claim, alleging failure to close the plant, could have serious legal repercussions if CapraTek did not implement adequate safety measures and communication policies related to COVID-19 (G. Mujtaba & A. Kaifi, 2023).

The Quan claim raises concerns about CapraTek’s compliance with OSHA, EEOC, and other guidelines. CapraTek may be found liable for not providing adequate safety measures and PPE. Conversely, CapraTek could argue compliance with federal or state guidelines for COVID-19 safety measures (G. Mujtaba & A. Kaifi, 2023).

The Clarke lawsuit carries significant legal implications, potentially holding CapraTek liable for not heeding local authorities’ advice to close the plant. However, the company might argue compliance with guidelines and that its decision was based on the situation’s assessment (Lobschat et al., 2019).

As for the Howell claim, the extent of legal risk depends on whether CapraTek had adequate safety measures and communication policies. If not, it might be liable under OSHA regulations. CapraTek could argue it followed relevant guidelines and provided necessary PPE and clear communication (Johan & Ariawan, 2021).

Potential Actions to Address the Issue

CapraTek needs to assess its policies and practices to minimize legal risks. Key areas to address include:

• Worker Classification: Review the classification of essential workers and ensure reasonable accommodations as required by the ADA (Dannecker & Schröder, 2023).
• Safety Measures and PPE: Ensure all safety measures, including PPE, are adequate and comply with OSHA standards (Ekong et al., 2023).
• Communication of Policies: Clearly communicate COVID-19 policies and safety measures to all employees and visitors (Johnson, 2020).
• Compliance with Local Authorities: Adhere to recommendations from local authorities regarding plant closures and safety measures (Litor, 2022).

By addressing these areas, CapraTek can better protect itself from potential legal liabilities and ensure a safer working environment (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

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

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