DB FPX 8410 Assessment 4 Propose Preventative Measures to Avoid Legal Liability DB-FPX 8410 Addressing Problems in Human Resources and Compliance

Prof. Name:

Date

Executive Summary

This analysis examines one of the complaint letters that could place CapraTek at significant legal risk and liability. Among the 30 complaint letters received by the company, one stands out for its potential to cause serious legal issues beyond the wrongful death letters. Omari Masri, an intern, sent a complaint letter regarding unpaid hours worked. This analysis discusses U.S. laws and regulations related to the complaint, the potential damage to the company and its employees if the complaint is not handled professionally, and preventive measures to eliminate future liabilities. Recommendations for legal defenses CapraTek should employ to defend against this complaint and the ethical implications will also be discussed.

Salient Facts

The complaint letter from intern Omari Masri outlines expectations of being overworked in a hostile work environment. Key facts include the intern taking on the responsibilities of a hired employee while being treated offensively. The overworking of the intern raises compliance concerns, and the alleged discrimination and harassment pose legal liabilities to CapraTek. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), an unpaid internship must provide an educational experience similar to training and must not replace a regular employee (Miller, 2017). If Masri can prove the internship violated DOL regulations, CapraTek could face consequences. A court ruling advised employers to use the primary beneficiary test to differentiate an intern from an employee under 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):

• The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
• The extent to which the internship provides training similar to that given in an educational environment, including clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
• The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program through integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
• The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
• The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
• The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
• The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

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

Courts have agreed that this test is flexible, and the classification is unique to each case depending on the circumstances (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018).

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

Legal Exposure

Based on the complaint letter’s facts, CapraTek’s legal exposure is high. If the allegations of harassment based on nationality are proven true, the company could face consequences from the EEOC and the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s citizenship or immigration status (National Origin Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). This also includes harassment based on national origin. However, the intern being an unpaid worker may not be covered by these regulations unless she proves she did not pass the beneficiary test set by the DOL (Share, 2017).

To establish legal liability, Masri must prove that CapraTek misclassified her internship and should have paid her wages, violating FLSA rules and regulations, resu