1. Give a brief procedural history of the case. Who are the parties? Who won at the trial or lower level, and which party filed the appeal? Which court is deciding the case?
The case involves a technician in angiography, Vincent Staub, and his employer organization, Proctor Hospital. Staub is the complainant of this case, who is suing the organization of employment discrimination. The case is against the administrative conduct of the organization, where the technician was unfairly dismissed from work after his supervisor gave a wrong account on his military obligations to the human resources office. Staub was then fired by the vice president of the human resources office (Buck) based on Korenchuk’s (supervisor) report. At the trial level, the case was in the favor of the complainant. The case is decided by the United States’ Court of Appeal and the opinion that was delivered by Justice Scalia (Zimmer 2011).
2. What are the facts of the case? What's the central dispute between the parties? In layman's terms, give the who, what, where, when, and why.
The facts of this case revolve around employment discrimination in that the complainant seeks justice after an alleged biased dismissal of the technical worker to Proctor Hospital. Vincent Staub worked at the hospital and was also involved in the United States Army Reserve. This other involvement needed that he attends a drill once every month and has a full time training for three weeks in a year. His supervisor (Korenchuk), despite knowing these activities did not respect Staub’s involvement.
Staub complains of being fired unfairly based on personal differences of the supervisor rather than proper employment violation. The military obligations that Vincent had to address were an unnecessary concern for the supervisor to attract termination of work. The supervisor and immediate supervisor were accused of unwanted hostility in relation to Staub’s military obligations (Zimmer 2011). It is reported that they secretly added him other shifts in work, so that he could cover more time for the hospital. The organization faces accusations of coordinated plans to get rid of Staub.
3. What's the employment or labor issue involved? What statutes or specific laws are at issue?
The employment issue at hand is the termination of work for Staub in Proctor Hospital. It is challenged that the administration did not follow the necessary approach in firing the angiographer. It is claimed that the attachment Staub had to military duties caused him to be fired by the hospital.
According to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of the year 1994, it is unlawful for an employer to use an employee’s status as a motivating factor in making decisions (Sullivan 1988). In this case, it is the obligation that Staub had in the military that pushed the supervisor to give a biased report on Staub leading to termination of work. This law protects employees from unfair employment conditions in any organization. It clearly states that on matters of employment, reemployment and promotion the status of the employee in uniformed service should not affect the decisions made by employer.
4. What's the outcome of the case? Which party wins? What reasons does the court provide for its decision? Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not?
The outcome of this case was that the court found the defendant guilty of violating employment laws. Proctor Hospital was determined to have made a decision in the light of a pre-existing conflict between the supervisor and Staub. In spite of the human resources department making their own independent decision after assessing employee report from the supervisor, the military obligations were found to be a motivating factor.
The court saw that the action of firing Staub was related to previous acts of dismissing him by his supervisor’s. This puts the whole process in check, as the vice president takes the fall for actions masterminded by the supervisors. The decision is reasonable as it goes back to the root of the problem between the employee and the supervisor’s, as it runs in employment laws.
5. Change the facts. Law is often about "what if." What facts would need to be different in order to change the outcome of the case?
For the case to give a different result, it would demand that the situation be changed. This means the final decision made by the administration was a necessary action that resulted from the employee’s lack of response (Epstein, 1992). Consider a situation where the employee would show little effort in work and fully focus on his military obligations. This directly puts him under the law that the organization finds a reasonable solution and without correcting he can be fired.
This would give the organization an upper hand as they would have acted according to agency laws and not discriminatingly.