Reference no: EM13701557

1: CONVENIENCE STORE CLERK'S CONUNDRUM
College sophomore Suzy Smart works part-time in the Handi Mart convenience store near campus. The manager at Handi Mart requires that each clerk arrive fifteen minutes prior to the start of the shift so that the clerk going off duty can review the sales figures and cash status with the replacement before leaving. The clerk going off duty punches her timecard after this review, but the oncoming clerk is not allowed to clock in until the review is completed and she has agreed that the sales and cash figures are accurate. Sometimes this exercise takes more than fifteen minutes; no matter how long it takes, the clerk coming on duty may not punch her timecard and start earning wages until the process is completed.

This semester, Suzy is taking a course on labor and employment law. After reading the text chapter concerning minimum wage and overtime rules under the FLSA, she realizes that the store manager is violating the law by not allowing the oncoming clerk to punch the time clock as soon as she arrives. She brings this up with the store manager.

The store manager tells Suzy that he is not allowed by the parent corporation of Handi Mart to compensate two clerks for the same period of time, no matter how brief, because this is classified by the corporation as a "single coverage "store. Furthermore, he adds ominously, if Suzy complains to the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. DOL, he probably will be forced by the company to lay off Suzy and the other part-timers and cover the evening shifts himself. "You may get everyone a few dollars in back pay, "he adds, "but you'll also cost everybody their jobs. Remember, some of your co-workers are single parents who need this extra income to make ends meet."

Should Suzy file a minimum wage complaint with the U.S. DOL?

#2: WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS A LAWYER
A young attorney asserts that certain partners of the law firm asked him to research the firm's obligations upon inadvertently finding possible child pornography on the computer of an important client or the computer of an executive of an important client. The young lawyer researched the issue and advised the partners that they were obligated to report the materials to law enforcement authorities. Unhappy with this news, the firm sought an opinion from outside counsel who orally provided the same advice. Rather than report the material to law enforcement, the partners instructed the plaintiff to find an entity that could permanently erase the images. Although the young associate attorney proceeded to contact such a company, he admittedly failed to have the images at issue promptly erased, hoping to convince the partners to report the images to authorities. Some months later, in December 2005, the partners discovered that the images had not been erased and terminated his employment.

The lawyer sued the firm for wrongful discharge, contending that his termination violated a clear mandate of public policy, namely strict federal laws requiring prompt reporting of instances of child pornography. The firm's partners sought to have his lawsuit dismissed, contending that he couldn't prove his case without violating equally stringent mandates of attorney-client privilege, since winning would require that he prove the underlying child-pornography violations.

Which policy do you think is more important, the federal law against child pornography or the rules of attorney-client privilege? Is there any way for a judge to balance these two competing public policies?