Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the Essay - 7

Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the liability of employers for references. How, if at all, doe - Essay Example Selective provision of reference for former employees could contravene the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) if such an exercise amounts to discrimination. In cases where an employer does not offer a reference, it is bound by a duty of care to the former employee. The duty requires the former employer to exercise reasonable care in the processing of accurate, truthful, clear, and fair references (Sam, 2004). Employers also have a duty to fellow employer. In executing this duty, Austen-Baker (2011) notes that a former employer may offer a detailed or a brief reference; however, the content must contain all the necessary information that leaves no room for speculation. Any employer who fails on this may be liable for negligent misrepresentation of facts (Gergen, 2013). Such an employer may also be vulnerable to tort of deceit charges. Detrimental treatment The Act provides important safeguards against victimisation of an individual who files a case against a former employer or has volunteere d evidence in trial under the statute or filed a claim for violation of the statute (Elder, and Gerdes, 2007). Before the Act was enacted, the English common law had ensured that immunity against whistle-blowers and victims was in place. For instance, the House of Lords verdict in the case of Rhys-Harper v Relaxation Group plc [2003] IRLR 484, directed that employees should be cushioned against victimisation such as an employer’s denial of reference in connection to an earlier engagement. Marson (2013) has pointed out that Section 108 of the statute precisely leaves out issues to do with detrimental treatment where an employer-employee relationship has ended. Even though the motive behind Parliament’s decision to leave out victimisation claims after the end of an employment relationship could be seen as an error, the alleged gap is consistent with placing no duty on an employer to give reference to a former employee. Authorities Various examples of the UK case law have not been consistent on victimization of former employees. In the case of Ono v Akwiku (2012), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) issued a verdict to the effect that it is legal for ex-employees to file for a claim for detrimental treatment under the Equality Act 2010. The ruling may have been informed by the fact that some employees are victims of unfair dismissal and subsequent victimization. Regardless of the reasoning, the EAT verdict contradicts the outcomes of the case of Rowstock Ltd & another v Jessemey (2013). In the latter case, the EAT held that Mr Rowstock could not be remedied for victimisation, following his receipt of a bad reference from his ex-employer. The claimant had alleged age discrimination as victimisation (Marson, 2013). The EAT's ruling was informed by the literal rule of  §108 of the Act, which could not be construed to arrive at a different meaning (Gergen, 2013). In the case of Ono v Atwiku, the petitioner, a domestic employee filed for a claim again st her ex-employers citing detrimental treatment which happened after the engagement between the two parties had ended. In its decision, as Marson (2013) states, the EAT sought to correct the ruling in Jessemey, by arguing that it would not be proper to bring claims of victimization against the former employer after they had gone separate ways. Legal absurdity In spite of the correction of the ruling on the former case

Gun Control in the United States Research Paper

Gun Control in the United States - Research Paper Example In short, more thorough background checks of those people who wish to buy guns is a necessity for stricter gun control due to the increased level of crimes involving guns in our communities. However, as DeConde (2001) notes, ‘no social issue of recent decades has produced more distorted data and contention among Americans than the struggle to control gun violence’ (p. 3), and so the issue is far from simple. There are well over 200 million guns in the United States (far more than in other developed countries) while the gun laws are comparatively weak. Canter ( 2006) found that when the US is compared to other economically-developed and democratically-governed countries, the age-adjusted rate of death by firearms is eight times as high as the average of the other countries pooled together. It is obvious that current background checks are not good enough. The massacre at Virginia Tech in April 2007, which left 32 staff and students dead, was carried out using two weapons, both of which was purchased completely legally at local stores. The killer had, two years earlier, been declared mentally ill and a danger to himself by a judge. This alone should surely have disqualified him from purchasing firearms, but he was never placed on a list banning him from buying guns in Virginia. The issue here was surely the vastly-different state laws on gun controls. What is needed is strong national laws, and checks conducted using nationwide databases. Fig. 1. The Geography of Gun Deaths in America. Source: atangledweb.org [Accessed January 27 2011] Background checks as a feature of the gun control debates in the United States date all the way back to the 1930s, when the District of Columbia introduced a 48-hour cooling off period for the purchase of firearms. Indeed, until the 1970s, the National Rifle Assocation (NRA) – the leading group in the pro-gun lobby, actually supported such policies. From 1986, there was a nationwide campaign for the introduction of a waiting period on all gun purchases, and in 1993, the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established a 5-day waiting period, during which time background checks were to be conducted to ascertain whether a gun could responsibly be sold to the applicant. Spitzer (2002) produced a list of the reasons for which a gun purchase could be blocked: if the applicant had been convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of more than a year, if a restraining order had been placed against them for violence, if they had been convicted of domestic abuse, if they had been arrested for using or selling banned substances, if they were deemed to be mentally unstable, or if they were an illegal alien (p. 51).The Brady Act is held to have had some effect on firearm-related violence. Canter (2006) noted that the number of deaths by guns fell from 37,776 in 1992 to 32,436 in 1997 (p. 3). Nevertheless, this can scarcely be hailed as the major breakthrough in tackling gun crime which is n eeded in the United States. While the Supreme Court struck down the requirement for police to conduct background checks in 1997, handgun background checks have largely continued. In theory, all this should have done much to ensure that only those who could safely be sold a handgun would be able to procure one. However, there have been major issues. In 1998, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) set up its National Instant Criminal Background