Reference no: EM133194408 , Length: 2 pages

Case 1:

Assume the date is April 2022. Thanks to a new vaccination the covid-19 virus is much less of a problem, and life is mostly back to "normal," but the virus has mutated and people are still being infected and a number of people--including peope in their 20s and 30s-are still dying. People still can't tell if they are infected and contagious.

Kelsey owns a Perfect Pizza franchise on North Lombard St. which has take-out pizza as well as eat-in tables. Like a lot of fast-food outlets, Perfect Pizza has fast turnover of its employees and is constantly hiring new workers. Concerned about the health of her staff and customers Kelsey requires all her employees to get a shot for the new vaccine.

Various employers require their employees to be up-to-date with various medical vaccinations. Oregon law provides that an individual may get an "exemption" from being required to take a medical vaccination if there is a valid medical reason or for 'sincere religious or philosophical objections to vaccination." The exemption application must be signed by a doctor.

Kelsey advertises for an employee and interviews Kai who has a year's experience working at a similar local pizza shop in Seattle before he and his girlfriend moved to Portland. Kelsey tells Kai: You look like a perfect fit--you're hired starting today. I'll set you up on our payroll system for $15/hr. and you can earn overtime if you want it. You can get right to work as soon as you bring me proof of your covid-19 vaccination." Kai signed a contract that described him as an "independent contractor" before he left the restaurant.

The next day Kai appears with a signed "exemption certificate" signed by his doctor. Kelsey responds: "Sorry, but I don't make exceptions on this--no vaccination, no job." The next day Kelsey gets a letter by FedEx delivery from a lawyer telling her: "Kai, my client, objects to his wrongful firing. Under Oregon law, an Oregon employer cannot refuse to recognize a valid medical exemption, including the right to be exempt from vaccinations due to sincere religious beliefs. Kai will report for work on Monday morning. Otherwise we will sue for wrongful discharge." [You may assume that the lawyer is correct-no need to look up Oregon law].

When a Perfect Pizza regional manager drops by the restaurant, he informs Kelsey that as a franchisee their contract requires Kelsey to have all employees near food or customers to wear masks until September 1.

Required: Answer the following, giving reasons for your conclusions

Question 1. What facts suggest Kai is really an employee not an independent contractor? and how does this affect Kai's legal rights here?
Question 2. If Kai is found to be an "at will" employee, can he be fired or let go for any reason? How about this reason, and the fact that Kai is protected by an Oregon statute?
Question 3. Can Kelsey be forced to let Kai work without getting his shot?
Question 4. Can she be held liable for putting her other employees at risk if they catch covid-19 from Kai?
Question 5. If they catch covid-19 from Kai can they heold Perfect Pizza, the franchisor liable?
Question 6. If you were a judge, would you find this was a "wrongful discharge" under Oregon law?

Case 2:

Two borthers, Sam and Tony owned ST-EX a small partnership that provided delivery service using three vans. Both worked in the business along with three employees. They contracted with several local bicycle shops to deliver parts from manufacturer warehouses--usually in one hour--so the shops could promise their customers "same day repairs." This worked out really well and kept two of the vans busy every day. The vans were always back at business by 4 o'clock. Sam managed the office & Tony himself used the third van to deliver pastries to suburban offices. When the covid-19 virus required restaurants to close their dining rooms, Sam contracted with several restaurants to make take-out deliveries after 4 o'clock--and the vans were now busy from 8 am to 10 pm.
Although Tony was only in his 30s, his doctor warned him that he might die if he contracted the virus due to his serious asthma and he needed to stay and "shelter" at home. Instead, Tony rented an apartment in Arizona and moved there leaving his brother to manage ST-EX for both of them. With the vans busy 15 hours a day and Tony unable to drive, Dam thought ST-EX needed a new 3rd driver. One of the drivers recommended his pal Kevin who had a clean driving record. Sam hired Kevin as an "independent contractor" because he thought he might need a 3rd driver for just a few months. Tony in Arizona, had no knowledge that Kevin, or anyone, was hired as a new driver.
One night Kevin made his first of two take-out deliveries in the van. On the way back from the first stop he made a side-trip of about three miles to pick up some dinner for himself at his favorite fish & chip shop. On his way back from the fish & chip shop he crashed the van into a new parked BMW while putting tarter sauce on the fish while he was driving. Kevin noticed a body shop still open, and its owner told him: "I'm wide open tomorrow--I can fix the van's dented fender for $1,000, but for $5,000 I can also paint the whole van and it will look like new." Without calling Sam, Kevin responded: "Great. We'll go for the whole paint job. My boss is good for it. I'll drop the van off tomorrow."

Required: Answer the following giving reasons for your conclusions. [Assume no car insurance is available]

Question 1. Kevin's accident was caught by a camera at a nearby 7-11 clearly showing the van plowing into the legally-parked BMW. Damage to the BMW is $10,000. Who is liable for the damage to the BMW--ST-EX or Kevin or both?

Question 2. Assume ST-EX is liable. Are Tony and Sam equally ultimately liable?

Question 3. Assume Sam has received the $5,000 body shop bill. Under agency law principles, is ST-EX liable on the deal Kevin made with the body shop?

Question 4. Assume ST-EX is found liable for the bill. Do Sam and Tony both have to pay $2,500, a smaller amount, or perhaps nothing?