Marietta V. Lorenz Case Analysis

1297 words 6 pages
Applicable Law & Principles:
”At will employment” means that the Company does not offer tenured or guaranteed employment for any period of time to any employee without an employment contract or written direction from the CEO/President.
In at will employment either the Company or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice.
This does not mean that employers can arbitrarily fire employees without good faith communication, fairness, and non-discriminatory practices. In fact, courts are increasingly finding for employees in litigation. Employers must demonstrate a good faith effort to correct the employee's performance or the other issues that led to employment
…show more content…
Lorenz instead chose to draft a memo standing his ground of the necessary changes and was later warned that he should “start playing ball with management”. Lorenz’s second encounter came during the Mixed Mode Contract project where he would be testing a machine designed to create complex stresses in the metals alloys used in the space shuttle. This project was being funded by an internal research and development fund of $25,000 from NASA. Shortly into his analysis Lorenz addressed that there were problems with the testing machine being supplied by Marietta. Upon inspecting the device Lorenz concluded that it was deficient and not suited to properly perform the testing required. Lorenz inquired about its deficiencies and asked how it could be so poorly built and it was confirmed that the device was built for merely $10,000 and the full $25,000 was not utilized. The third and final project was named “The Tug”, this was a vehicle used to transport astronauts in space from one area to another. Lorenz’s role was to investigate and evaluate the fracture possibilities of the thin gauge aluminum used in the tank. Upon testifying Lorenz stated that he was pressured to state that the material was sufficient, he refused to write a final report stating the adequacy of the materials. He told his supervisors that stating otherwise would lower his integrity and ability to be an expert for Martin Marietta. On July 22, 1975 Lorenz received a

Related

  • Plessy V Ferguson Analysis
    1365 words | 6 pages
  • Case Analysis
    881 words | 4 pages
  • Case Analysis: Mitchell V Glasgow City Council [2009] Ukhl 11; [2009]
    2285 words | 10 pages
  • Case 1 Martin Marietta Vulcan Merger
    1423 words | 6 pages
  • Case Analysis
    1507 words | 7 pages
  • Business Law Donoghue V Stevenson Case Study
    1942 words | 8 pages
  • Case Analysis
    866 words | 4 pages
  • case analysis
    2330 words | 10 pages
  • Case Study: Hollis V Vabu
    2056 words | 9 pages
  • Regina V. G and Another Case Brief
    1190 words | 5 pages