Share
Explore BrainMass

Rodgers v. Lorenz - 25 A.3d 1229 Pa.Super. (2011)

Answer the 5 questions regarding: Rodgers v. Lorenz - 25 A.3d 1229 Pa.Super. (2011). I cannot attach the case as a pdf file because it is too large, but the case is widely available online. Please answer each question thoroughly in plain language.

1. Explain the Pennsylvania Superior Court's ruling. Does it reinstate the plaintiff's employment at Carload Express?

2. If your answer for question 1 was "no," what must the plaintiff still prove, when his case is reconsidered by the trial judge?

3. Did the plaintiff prove that the Crime Victims' Employment Protection Act was preempted by the Worker's Compensation Act in this case?

4. The plaintiff raises the following question: When the Crime Victims' Employment Protection Act was written, did the Legislature intend to protect crime victims who have not yet attended their hearings, from threats, coercion, and loss of employment? To what conclusion did the court arrive in its final opinion?

5. Does the court's decision in this case suggest a liberalization of an historic position on employment-at-will, or is the decision essentially limited to its particular facts?

Solution Preview

Step 1
The Pennsylvania Superior Court's ruling is that the Crime Victims Employment Protection Act offers protection to crime victims for court attendance. In other words Crime Victims Employment Protection Act allows employees to attend court proceedings without concern as to their employment status. The protected activity is court attendance, in case of Rodgers v. Lorenz the employer was prevented from terminating Rogers for filing a criminal charge that would require court attendance. The Crime Victims Employment Protection Act clearly says that an employer shall not deprive an ...

Solution Summary

Crime Victims Employment Protection Act is discussed step-by-step in this solution. The response also has the sources used.

$2.19