Ford Case

In Ford v. Revlon Inc., the Supreme homage of azimuth held that genus azimuths actors remuneration law did not provide the easy lay remedy to Leta Fay Ford, a Revlon employee who was sexually harassed and physically assaulted by a co-worker. The court upheld the jurys verdict against Revlon, stating that the tort was make through Revlons inaction over a block in excess of eight months and that the resulting ruttish spot to the plaintiff was thitherfore not unexpected or accidental. Fords recuperation was not limited to a workers compensation claim. A a couple of(prenominal) years after the Ford decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals, in Irvin Investors Inc. v. Superior Court, was called upon to determine whether an employee could sue her employer in a tort action when she was sexually molested by a co-worker. She cited Ford as authority to bring an action against her employer. The Court of Appeals rejected her claim, stating that there was no evidence that the empl oyer was even apprised of the co-workers botch until she quit.

Furthermore, the conduct was described as an unexpected injury-causing event deep down the coverage of the workers compensation statute. This case suggests a possible track toward erosion of the exclusivity expel of workers compensation when it comes to workplace force play. If an employer is presumably on notice that an employee displays episodes of violence and does nothing, or very little, for a drawn-out period of clock and the employee ultimately engages in a violent act resulting in physical harm and emotional distress, can the wou nd worker bring a claim for intentional fus! s of emotional distress against the employer? The answer appears to be a suffice yes.If you extremity to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper