Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
Chapter 18Management of Employee
Conduct: Agency
Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment
MARIANNE M. JENNINGS
7th Ed.
2 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Nature of Agency: Agency relationship is one in which one party agrees to act on behalf of another.– Examples: sales clerks, real estate
agents, sports agents.• Agent: Party who acts for another.• Principal: The party for whom the
agent acts.
TerminologyTerminology
3 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Master/Servant:– Relationship in which the master/principal
exercises a great deal of control over the servant/ agent. Most common form is employer/employee relationship.
– Factors that control whether this type of relationship exists:
• Level of supervision.• Level of control.• Regularity of hours and pay.• Length of employment.
TerminologyTerminology
4 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Independent contractor:– Hired to perform a task but is not
directly supervised. Example: Lawyer.• Agency Law: Restatement of Agency.
• Common law followed by most courts.
TerminologyTerminology
5 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Three Parts to Agency Law:– Creating the agency relationship.– Relationship between principal and
agent.– Relationships of agent and principal to
third parties.
TerminologyTerminology
6 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Creating the Agency Relationship: when the principal hires someone.
• Express Authority Agency.– Created by principal stating or writing that
agency exists and the authority thereof.– Requires oral or written agreement - must be
in writing if required by statute of frauds.• Example: Agency contract is longer than one
year.
Agency CreationAgency Creation
7 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• The Writing.– If the agent’s contracts must be in
writing, the authority must be in writing.• Principal Must Have Legal Capacity.
• Age and mental capacity.
Agency CreationAgency Creation
8 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Capacity: unincorporated associations do not have capacity:– Have no legal existence.– Members will be liable since there is no
principal.• The capacity of agent becomes an
issue when it concerns: • Authority to enter contracts.• Potential liability to third parties.
Agency CreationAgency Creation
9 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Implied Authority: the extension of express authority by custom.
• Apparent Authority:– Arises from the way agents present themselves
to third parties.– Also called agency by estoppel or ostensible
authority.• Examples: Failure to notify of an agent’s
retirement, allowing bank to use your name for another’s loan.
Agency CreationAgency Creation
10 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 18.1 Montoya v. Grease Monkey Holding Corp. (1995).– What was the apparent authority
Sensenig had?– What representations were made to
Montoya?– Is this apparent or actual authority?
Apparent AuthorityApparent Authority
11 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Agency by Ratification.– Principal reviews contract and decides to
honor it even though agent had no authority to enter into it.
• Fiduciary Relationship.– Agent acts in the principal’s best interests.
• Loyalty, trust, care, obedience.– Loyalty.
• Agent can’t represent both sides.• Can’t make a profit at principal’s expense.
Agency CreationAgency Creation
12 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 18.2 Silva v. Bisbee (1981).– What did agent Bisbee fail to disclose?– Was agent Bisbee representing both
sides in a transaction?– Why is Midkiff also liable?
Fiduciary DutiesFiduciary Duties
13 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 18.3 Coady v. Harpo, Inc. (1999).– What did Ms. Coady agree to at the time
of employment?– Is there a difference between a
confidentiality agreement and covenant not to compete?
– Was the Oprah covenant enforceable?
Loyalty: CovenantsLoyalty: Covenants
14 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Agent: Obedience.– Follows principal’s instructions . – Need not do anything illegal.
• Agent: Duty of care.– Give time and effort.– Follow through.
• Principal: Duties and Rights.– Duty to pay -- Except gratuitous agency.– Duty to reimburse.
Rights and DutiesRights and Duties
15 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Principal’s Liability to Third Parties.– Contract liability and issues of
disclosure.• Principal has full liability for authorized
acts of agent and those done with apparent authority.
• Disclosed principal—principal is fully liable; agent is not unless the agent had no authority.
Principal’s LiabilityPrincipal’s Liability
16 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
Principal’s LiabilityPrincipal’s Liability• Contract liability and issues of
disclosure.– Partially disclosed principal—agent
indicates there is a principal but does not tell who it is; third party can hold either liable
– Undisclosed principal—agent does not disclose there is a principal; agent stands alone unless principal comes forward
17 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Liability of Principals for torts.– Must have master-servant relationship,
not independent contractor.– Liable for torts of servants in scope of
employment.• Scope = doing master’s work.• Doctrine of respondeat superior-let the
master answer.• Not liable for torts committed while on
frolic.
Principal’s LiabilityPrincipal’s Liability
18 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 18.4 Faverty v. McDonald’s Restaurant of Oregon, Inc. (1995)– Why would a restaurant association have
an interest in the outcome of the case?• Case 18.5 Lange v. National
Biscuit Co. (1973)– What test does the court give for
determining scope of employment?
Scope of EmploymentScope of Employment
19 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
Negligent HiringNegligent Hiring• Case 18.6 Doe v. Norwich Roman
Catholic Diocesan Corp. (2003).– Does respondeat superior apply here?– Why is negligent hiring an issue in this
case? – What must the plaintiff prove to recover
against the church?
20 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Principles are generally not liable for the torts of Independent Contractors.
• Exceptions:– Inherently dangerous activities.– Negligent hiring of independent contractor.– Principal provided specifications for project or
Job.
Principal’s LiabilityPrincipal’s Liability
21 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Due to:– Definite duration of time.– Agent quits/is fired.– Principal dies/is incapacitated.– Need to give public or constructive notice
(trade publication).– Actual notice (letters).– Without notice, agent will have lingering
apparent authority.
Agency TerminationAgency Termination
22 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Has no definite ending date.• Usually there is no formal written
contract.• Used to be they could be fired at any
time.
Termination of At-WillTermination of At-Will
23 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• The Do’s and Don’ts of Firing At-Will Employees.– Do:
• Conduct regular reviews of employees, using objective, uniform measures of performance.
– Don't• Make oral promises of job security to employees
who might later be laid off.• Danger: Breach of contract suit.
Termination of At-WillTermination of At-Will
24 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• The Do’s and Don’ts of Firing At-Will Employees.– Do: Give clear, business-related reasons
for any dismissal, backed by written documentation when possible.
– Don't: Put pressure on an employee to resign in order to avoid getting fired.• Danger: Coercion suit.
Termination of At-WillTermination of At-Will
25 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Do:– Seek legal waivers from older workers who
agree to leave under an early-retirement plan, and make sure they understand the waiver terms in advance.
• Don't:– Make derogatory remarks about any dismissed
worker, even if asked for a reference by a prospective employer.
• Danger: Defamation suit.
Termination of At-WillTermination of At-Will
26 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Do:– Follow any written company guidelines for
termination, or be prepared to show in court why they're not binding in any particular instance.
• Don't: – Offer a fired employee a face-saving reason
for the dismissal that's unrelated to poor performance.
– Danger: Wrongful discharge suit.
Termination of At-WillTermination of At-Will
27 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• The Implied Contract– In some states personnel manuals will be
a contract if employees rely on its procedures.
• Case 18.7 Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. (2002).
Termination of At-WillTermination of At-Will
28 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• The Public Policy Protection—Whistle-Blowers:– Whistle Blower Protection Act of 1978.– False Claims Act.
• Protection for Whistle-Blowers—The Anti-retaliation Statutes.– Passed in many states and by federal agencies.
• Prohibit firing, demotion, reprimands, and pay cuts of
employees who report conduct of their employers.
Public PolicyPublic Policy
29 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Protection for Whistle-Blowers—The Anti-retaliation Statutes.– Federal level—Energy Reorganization Act
affords protection for employees involved in nuclear work.
– Whistle-Blowing for Both Employers and Employees.
– Many companies have created a peer review process for termination and other actions against employees.
Public PolicyPublic Policy
30 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Case 18.8 Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc. (1996).– Does this case create an affirmative
legal duty for helping those in danger?– Can an employee in Washington be fired
for assisting a citizen who is a crime victim?
Public PolicyPublic Policy
31 Copyright ©2006 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning
• Pitfalls of Complex Global Organizations.– Complex interrelationships often evade
the law. Example: BCCI and its complex structure.
– Disclosure of interrelationships becomes important for conflicts, compliance.
International LawInternational Law