DB FPX 8410 Assessment 4

Executive Summary

This is one of the complaint letters that would land CapraTek in legal trouble and liability. Among 30 complaint letters received, one stands out for its potentially serious legal issues, excluding the wrongful death letters received by them. Intern Omari Masri complained through a letter about unpaid work hours. This conversation involves U.S. laws and regulations regarding the complaint, harm to the company and employees if the complaint is not handled professionally, and preventive measures to escape future liabilities. Legal defense suggestions CapraTek should use to protect itself against the complaint and the ethics involved will be discussed.

Salient Facts

The intern Omari Masri’s complaint letter outlined the expectations of working excessively in a hostile work environment. The key facts are that the intern is carrying out responsibilities of a full-time staff employee and is employed and treated in a derogatory manner. Overworking of the intern leads to compliance concerns, and the charges of harassment and discrimination pose legal hazards to CapraTek. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), an unpaid internship must be educational in type, similar to training, and may not replace a regular employee (Miller, 2017). If Masri succeeds in proving that the internship violated DOL laws, CapraTek could suffer. A court ruling mandated employers to use the primary beneficiary test to differentiate between an intern and an employee for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). The most recent test includes seven factors (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018):

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 4: Propose Preventative Measures to Avoid Legal Liability 

• To what extent the employer and the intern both clearly see that there is no expectation of payment. Any express or implicit promise of pay signals that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
• The extent to which the internship mirrors training that would be offered in an educational setting, like clinical and other hands-on training that educational institutions give.
• To what extent the internship is tied to the intern’s regular course of study through integrated coursework or through the granting of academic credit.
• The extent to which the internship is compatible with the intern’s academic schedule by dovetailing the academic calendar.
• The extent to which the internship is confined to the period during which the internship provides the intern with meaningful learning.
• The extent to which the work of the intern supplements, and does not replace, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefit to the intern.
• The extent to which the employer and the intern understand that the internship is being done without expectation of employment at the conclusion of the internship.

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 4: Propose Preventative Measures to Avoid Legal Liability 

Courts have concurred that the test is flexible, and the classification varies for each case based on the facts (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018).

Masri’s letter also states that when she raised her concerns with her supervisor, the supervisor attacked her nationality and suggested she return to where she came from. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines national origin discrimination as treating an employee in an unfavorable manner because of their nationality (National Origin Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division enforces the EEOC provisions (National Origin Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). This places CapraTek at risk of legal liability.

Legal Exposure

Based on facts in the complaint letter, CapraTek faces high legal risk. If the charges of nationality-based harassment are substantiated, the company would be vulnerable to the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) prohibits discriminating against an employee on the basis of his or her citizenship or immigration status (National Origin Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). This also includes national origin harassment. However, the circumstance that the intern is an unpaid worker may not be protected by these laws unless she proves she failed the beneficiary test set by the DOL (Share, 2017).

In order to prove legal liability, Masri needs to prove that CapraTek improperly designated her internship and should have paid her wages, violating FLSA laws and regulations, with resulting fines and penalties. Luckily for CapraTek, Masri did not get COVID-19 during work, since this would have created another problem with worker’s compensation insurance. Paid interns are covered under worker’s compensation, and since Masri’s complaint involves the classification of paid or unpaid internship, this would have led to another legal liability, as Illinois law requires employers to cover workers with insurance (Employer Guide to Internship Laws, n.d.; Insurance – About, n.d.).

Harm to Company

The worst harm to CapraTek is the settlement cost of any lawsuit. Apart from money loss, there are also internal issues that can arise from discrimination cases. There can be a morale shift, which will adversely affect employee productivity and company performance. CapraTek can also suffer reputational harm, especially among different nationalities of consumers.

Internships are profitable to businesses, as most of them employ interns as full-time employees. Internships allow companies to try individuals’ work ethics, adaptability, and compatibility within the organization (Steele, 2017). Paid internships result in approximately 65% of interns receiving job offers, and unpaid interns receive offers 39% of the time (Steele, 2017). Without its internship arrangements with colleges, CapraTek risks losing skilled potential workers.

Preventative Measures

Having a quality human resources group working for your organization is where it begins for the prevention of legal liability, as they ensure rules and regulations are followed (B&F System Admin, 2017). HR ensures hiring protocol is regulatory compliant with legislation such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (B&F System Admin, 2017). Consulting the HR department if there are concerns observed can prevent liabilities since they help ensure actions do not lead to legal consequences.

Regular training of employees and the management in policies and regulations can prevent legal liabilities through sensitization. Training must reach accessible channels of help for employees who happen to observe deviations. A formal reporting process for observing deviations and information on the resulting punishment for violation can similarly prevent liabilities.

Defense

CapraTek’s initial argument is proving that the intern had satisfied the requirements for an unpaid intern as determined by the DOL. This means checking documents showing the work done by the intern. Assuming Masri could prove she wasn’t an unpaid intern, then CapraTek must prove that she met the requirements for an unpaid internship if she was going to stand any chance of winning the case.

Investigating the harassment allegation regarding Masri’s nationality is crucial. If the supervisor involved has no prior complaints of this nature, the defense could argue that there were no witnesses to the discriminatory remark and no history of such conduct, leaving it as Masri’s word against the supervisor’s.

Ethical Implications

Ethically, working an intern excessively for free contradicts CapraTek’s mission and core values. It is unethical to expect free work while employees are already overworked due to the pandemic. Permitting derogatory comments creates a hostile work environment, which is not acceptable. Facilitating such action can lead to internal chaos, making workers unsafe to work with in the workplace, something that is not ethical for any business.

Conclusion

Addressing complaints seriously and appropriately is crucial for any company. This paper highlights the legal, reputational, cultural, and ethical implications of Masri’s complaint. One complaint can significantly impact a company from multiple facets. CapraTek should take this complaint seriously and work to address the issues presented, both in this specific case and for the future.

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 4: Propose Preventative Measures to Avoid Legal Liability 

National Origin Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Www.eeoc.gov. Retrieved October 13, 2022, from https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination

Share, M. A. B. (2017, June 12). The Law Regulating Unpaid Interns, Part II: Rights Under Federal and State Nondiscrimination Laws. Www.pullcom.com. https://www.pullcom.com