The laws could pertain to discrimination, public safety, criminal acts or anything else.
This discussion is base on this escenario “Li Li worked for Packard Bioscience, and Mark Schmeizl was her supervisor. Schmeizl told Li to call Packard’s competitors, pretend to be a potential customer, and request “pricing information and literature.” Li refused to perform the assignment. She told Schmeizl that she thought the work was illegal and recommended that he contact Packard’s legal department. Although a lawyer recommended against the practice, Schmeizl insisted that Li perform the calls. Moreover, he later wrote negative performance reviews because she was unable to get the requested information when she called competitors and identified herself as a Packard employee. Several months later, Li was terminated on Schmeizl’s recommendation. [Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 134 Conn.App. 448, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)]”
Read answer number 1 and the response to this and give your opinion base on the answer number 2 ( 2 per review reference and APA 7th edition)
This discussion addresses where Li is entitled to claim for a wrongful discharge. This case involves Li who was an employee of Packard bioscience under the supervision of Mark Schmeizi. Schmeizi however approached the junior employee with the order that Li is supposed to make a call to their competitor in the business market and Li would pretend to be a potential customer and therefore receive the benefit of the doubt by acquiring both literature and pricing information of the competitor. Li, however, did not do as ordered by her supervisor because in her senses she viewed the act to be illegal and later recommended that she will contact the legal team of Packard and report the incident. The lawyer involved in the procession advised against the act but Schmeizi insisted to Li that the task was to be performed without questioning. Because Li was unable to get the information she was required to obtain, Schmeizi wrote a negative recommendation against Li. Several months after this incident li was terminated from being an employee of the Packard company. The specific law that is involved in this form of activity is the Antitrust law (Polden, 2019). Antitrust legislation prevents the distortion of the market as a result of unethical and anti-competitive practices in the operation of a business. This law provides for healthy competition in a specific industry by promoting a fair playing field for all the companies involved in the specific industry. This stop competing companies from playing dirty to win greater marketing platform by obtaining pricing information and literature about the other company through unethical means (Polden, 2019). The Antitrust law according to its provisions s can be applied in the case involving Li and Schmeizi in that supervisor Schmeizi was misusing his power to order Li to obtain information about their competitor in an unethical manner failure to which the supervisor used his office and power to terminate the service of Li. Based on the above argument, Li can claim wrongful discharge and file a legal petition against Schmeizi. This is because Schmeizi was violating the antitrust law and anyone who violates the law is liable to face legal proceedings. In addition to violation of the antitrust law, Schmeizi can be convicted of the abuse of power by forcing Li to impersonate a potential customer of the competing companies. Li did not break any rules and her integrity resulted in the inappropriate termination; therefore, Li is entitled to bring a claim for wrongful discharge.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, is a federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. How does this post change your viewpoint, or does it not? Use the facts. If Li can claim wrongful termination does Li have facts to support it. Does it rise to the level of illegal firing under the intent of the whistleblower act? Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 31-51m contains protection against retaliation for whistleblowers. The law says that an employer may not discharge, discipline or otherwise penalize an employee because they report a violation or suspected violation of the law, be that law or regulation federal, state, municipal or by any public body. The laws could pertain to discrimination, public safety, criminal acts or anything else. What can Li claim to qualify?