Fact Pattern: Mary and Joe, among others, work as window washers on a skyscraper in NYC. To access the windows they use a rope and scaffold system governed by OSHA Standard 29 CFR §§ 1910.27 and 1926 (ignore any NY Law). Mary was set to work on the east side of the building with her team of window washers, and Joe was set to work on the west side of the building with his team of window washers. The two sides are completely independent of each other. As Joe was doing his inspection, he noticed that one of the scaffold cables was slightly frayed. Based on the fraying, he told his manager that he felt that the situation was unsafe, and he refused to get on the window washing scaffold. The manager said that the cable could not be replaced until the next day but that the fraying was not significant enough to impact the safety of the scaffold. The manager called a company engineer (with appropriate training and knowledge of cables) who indicated that while the cable should ultimately be replaced to prevent further fraying, the cable was safe to use for the day. Moreover, Joe would be connected to a safety harness which was independent of the scaffold and there would be the netting under the scaffold, both of which virtually eliminated Joe’s risk of harm. Mary heard about the fraying on the west side and refused to work on the east side scaffold, arguing that if the cable on the west side was frayed, the cable on the east side could be frayed (though she had no evidence of that). The manager said that the east side cable had been replaced more recently than the west side cable, that there was no sign of fraying, and that the two sides are completely independent. The company engineer agreed. Moreover, they pointed out, as they had to Joe, that Mary would be connected to a safety harness which was independent of the scaffold and there would be netting under the scaffold, both of which virtually eliminated Mary’s risk of harm. For reasons not relevant, OSHA was not able to get to the site to do a safety assessment. Despite the manager’s and engineer’s assurances, Joe and Mary were each unwilling to get on their respective scaffolds and refused to perform their window washing duties until both cables were replaced. As a result, window washing work could not be performed (no other window washers were available to work that day). As a result of the two refusing to work, the company was going to miss the contractual deadline for completing the work and lose a significant amount of money. When the the president of the company heard about the indicent, he told the Human Resources (HR) vice president (VP) that he wants to fire Joe and Mary. You are a company HR representative who works for the HR VP. Your VP asks asks you for an e-mail explaining the situation; the law; whether, if each employee were to be fired, would the firings likely stand up in court; and the rationale for your answers as to whether each of the firings would likely stand up in court. As succinctly as you can (two pages or less) (single spaced, 12-point type, Times New Roman font or very similar), write to your boss, the HR VP, a professional e-mail answering the questions. You may use bullet points (executives often like them), but the e-mail needs to be much more than an outline. Do not copy from any source without attribution. This includes sources online, the text, slides, the cases in the text, or another person, etc.

Fact Pattern: Mary and Joe, among others, work as window washers on a skyscraper in NYC. To access the windows they use a rope and scaffold system governed by OSHA Standard 29 CFR §§ 1910.27 and 1926 (ignore any NY Law). Mary was set to work on the east side of the building with her team of window washers, and Joe was set to work on the west side of the building with his team of window washers. The two sides are completely independent of each other. As Joe was doing his inspection, he noticed that one of the scaffold cables was slightly frayed. Based on the fraying, he told his manager that he felt that the situation was unsafe, and he refused to get on the window washing scaffold. The manager said that the cable could not be replaced until the next day but that the fraying was not significant enough to impact the safety of the scaffold. The manager called a company engineer (with appropriate training and knowledge of cables) who indicated that while the cable should ultimately be replaced to prevent further fraying, the cable was safe to use for the day. Moreover, Joe would be connected to a safety harness which was independent of the scaffold and there would be the netting under the scaffold, both of which virtually eliminated Joe’s risk of harm. Mary heard about the fraying on the west side and refused to work on the east side scaffold, arguing that if the cable on the west side was frayed, the cable on the east side could be frayed (though she had no evidence of that). The manager said that the east side cable had been replaced more recently than the west side cable, that there was no sign of fraying, and that the two sides are completely independent. The company engineer agreed. Moreover, they pointed out, as they had to Joe, that Mary would be connected to a safety harness which was independent of the scaffold and there would be netting under the scaffold, both of which virtually eliminated Mary’s risk of harm. For reasons not relevant, OSHA was not able to get to the site to do a safety assessment. Despite the manager’s and engineer’s assurances, Joe and Mary were each unwilling to get on their respective scaffolds and refused to perform their window washing duties until both cables were replaced. As a result, window washing work could not be performed (no other window washers were available to work that day). As a result of the two refusing to work, the company was going to miss the contractual deadline for completing the work and lose a significant amount of money. When the the president of the company heard about the indicent, he told the Human Resources (HR) vice president (VP) that he wants to fire Joe and Mary. You are a company HR representative who works for the HR VP. Your VP asks asks you for an e-mail explaining the situation; the law; whether, if each employee were to be fired, would the firings likely stand up in court; and the rationale for your answers as to whether each of the firings would likely stand up in court. As succinctly as you can (two pages or less) (single spaced, 12-point type, Times New Roman font or very similar), write to your boss, the HR VP, a professional e-mail answering the questions. You may use bullet points (executives often like them), but the e-mail needs to be much more than an outline. Do not copy from any source without attribution. This includes sources online, the text, slides, the cases in the text, or another person, etc.