The case of Zheng vs. Liberty Apparel Co. involved 25 Chinese employees who claimed that they had worked and lived in New York City China town. The workers had worked were employed with plaintiff garment and had gone for so many months without being paid. The workers sued Liberty Apparel Company for violating the Fair labor Standards Act (Perritt 23). The district court however dismissed their complaints and declined to exercise the pendent jurisdiction. The liberty defendants were granted summary motion by the district court. According to N. Y. Lab. Law 345- a, the employer does not need to have an employment relationship with his employees.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
The district court ruled out that the Liberty Defendants under FLSA were not the joint employers of the complainants. Basing on the admission agreement, the defendants did not keep the employment records. They did not have the payment records so it was difficult to detect their claims. According to FLSA, an employee is defined as one who is employed by an employee. This makes the definition so broad. An individual can be employed by more than one employer but fail to have that reemployment relationship with his employer. This makes him loose most of the benefits tht a normal employee should be entitled to.
The District court took an erred action in this case (Walsh 36).The court never looked beyond the traditional principals before it makes a decision that the employee does not have an employment relationship according to FLSA. The court is also held erred when it makes a conclusion that Liberty and principals according to the New York statutory were not joint employers. The court should have considered the time that the employee had worked in the organization and given a different verdict to favor the employee (Perritt 67). This verdict taken by the court may put the workers who are normally out sourced by different companies be at risk in terms of their payment and their relationship. This means that the there is no law protecting them.
The second case is between Shero vs. Grand Savings Bank. During the employment of the employee, the employee participated in initiating the City grove who was the bank customer. This made the employee to have a counterclaim over the action leading to putting most of the records in public. This was against the open Records Act. The employee failed to drop the claims that were placed against him and he was later forced by his employer to resign from his job. David Earl Shiro decided to bring the action of his employer to the court for wrongfully terminating his contract.
According to Act 51 O. S. 2001, the bank never violated any policy when it terminated employee’s employment in the counterclaim of the bank. The court ruling was so right when it ruled out the employee’s petition. The employer/Bank might not have violated any public policy when it decided to condition their employee’s employment on the counterclaim of the open records (Walsh 54). The court might have made a right decision because the employer has a right to protect his policy from the public unless requested by the required entities. As much as it may look morally wrong for the employee to terminate the contract of his employee, Burk tort does not favor any employee who is not morally upright. This may just cost the brand name of the company and may be even more costly than sucking the affected employee (Perritt 45). The court should protect the employee’s rights but not at the expense of the organization. As much as the employee has the freedom of exercising illegal acts, he is supposed to put the employer into consideration.