Green v. Ralee Engineering Company

We are ready to represent the best custom paper writing assistance that can cope with any task like Green v. Ralee Engineering Company even at the eleventh hour. The matter is that we posses the greatest base of expert writers. Our staff of freelance writers includes approximately 300 experienced writers are at your disposal all year round. They are striving to provide the best ever services to the most desperate students that have already lost the hope for academic success. We offer the range of the most widely required, however, not recommended for college use papers. It is advisable to use our examples like Green v. Ralee Engineering Company in learning at public-education level. Get prepared and be smart with our best essay samples cheap and fast! Get in touch and we will write excellent custom coursework or essay especially for you.

Facts of The Case

Richard Green went to work in 168 as a quality control inspector for Ralee Engineering Company, which manufactures fuselage and wing components for military and civilian aircraft. Some of Ralee’s clients were Boeing and Northrop. Mr. Green went to work as an at-will employee, and, as such could be let go at any time for any reason not otherwise prohibited by law. In 10, after being with the company for twenty-two years, Mr. Green noticed Ralee was beginning to ship parts that had failed inspection. Over the next two years he frequently objected about this practice to supervisory and management personnel. He even went so far as to bring his concerns to the general manager and the company president. His complaints and protests fell on deaf ears. The company continued to ship parts to Boeing that had failed inspection.

In March 11, Ralee decided to shut down its night shift, and let Mr. Green go after twenty-three years of employment. During the lay-off of the night shift employees, Ralee retained the services of other inspectors from that shift with considerably less seniority than Mr. Green had. Mr. Green filed a wrongful termination complaint. He maintained he was fired in retaliation for complaining about the company’s unsafe practice of shipping faulty parts. Mr. Green photocopied inspection reports to provide proof of the ongoing practice. Boeing confirmed Mr. Green’s charges, and terminated its contract with Ralee.

Rules of Law




At-will employment is defined as “if an employee is not under contract, he or she is an at-will employee. An employer can dismiss an at-will employee hired for an indefinite term at any time for any non-discriminatory reason” (www.legal-definitions.com). The California Supreme Court ruled in Tameny v, Atlantic Richfield Co., 7Cal. d 167 (180), that an at-will employee cannot be fired if it violates “fundamental public policy”. Unfortunately, the court did not clearly define “fundamental public policy”. In Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal.4th 108 (1) the court tried to clarify this policy by ruling that “fundamental public policy” must be located within constitutional or a statutory provisions.

Ralee filed a summary judgment motion, maintaining it was entitled to discharge Mr. Green, even if it did so because he complained about the company’s practice of shipping faulty parts. Ralee further maintained that this practice did not violate a public policy located within constitutional or statutory provisions. The trial court agreed that Mr. Green was an at-will employee, whom his employer had every right to fire due to his continued complaining about how they conducted their business. Mr. Green appealed the decision. The California Court of Appeals upheld Mr. Green’s complaint and allowed him to go to trial on his claims. The California Supreme Court ruled that Federal Aviation Act (FAA) regulations provide inspection guidelines to ensure the safety of aircraft components and that those regulations were sufficiently “tethered” to the FAA. The court further reasoned in support of Mr. Green’s claim that “promoting airline safety- the subject of the federal regulations � constitutes a policy of sufficient public importance.” By a 5 to vote, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Green’s claim.

Managerial Prospective

When Mr. Green first brought it to Ralee’s attention that some aircraft components the company was producing were failing inspection, Ralee should have investigated the matter and then taken corrective action if needed. Taking this action would have been the right thing to do for its customers and to ensure the aircraft components met FAA regulations, which affect public safety. Mr. Green had more than twenty years of seniority with the company as a quality control inspector so it stands to reason, he knew what he was doing and his concerns should not have been ignored. By firing Mr. Green for reasons that appeared disingenuous, Ralee took the matter from an internal problem to a public one that had to be resolved by the highest court in the State of California. It cost the company money, time and its reputation.



References

Green v. Ralee Engineering Company, 78 Cal.Rptr.d 16 (Cal. 18),

http//library.lp.findlaw.com/laboremploymentlaw

http//www.legal-definitions.com

Tameny v, Atlantic Richfield Company, 7Cal. d 167 (Cal. 180),

http//library.lp.findlaw.com/laboremploymentlaw

Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal.4th 108 (Cal.1),

http//library.lp.findlaw.com/laboremploymentlaw



Mind that the sample papers like Green v. Ralee Engineering Company presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!