Analysis of scenarios using the IRAC Method

Analysis of scenarios using the IRAC Method

Name of Student
Institutional Affiliation

Analysis of scenarios using the IRAC Method
Case #1
Whether James acted within the scope of his employment after injuring Clamor is a question of whether the contract of his assignment on the USS Los Angeles covered for the damages caused by their employees in the course of their operations, and if they did, then the terms and conditions under which the cover is valid come into play. The US navy has insurance covers for its employees’ safety and third party damages caused by its active employees.
The cover in most cases is limited to the employees and the organization’s property such as vehicles as well as the damages caused to others. In the case of James Karagiorgis, he is a civilian employee of the US Navy and, therefore, the cover binds him in case of any accidents. But in Hawaii, he is on a temporary assignment where there are no government houses and cars so he decides to make some personal arrangements. Suppose the contract covered for all the damage, then they would definitely not be involved with the third party accident because Karagiorgis was not using the agency’s vehicle and he was also living in a private residence so technically, the assignment was not that official. In addition to that, every state has its rules and since they were in Hawaii, where the rule of law is unbiased (Fairman, 1946), the plaintiff was found not the one at fault, then Karagiorgis was definitely the one with the fault due to his negligence.
Therefore, since Karagiorgis was not using the agency’s car and residence during his operations, the agency can incriminate him as being on a personal assignment and not the agency’s and therefore he was not acting within the scope of his employment when he knocked a car on traffic and in the process injuring Clamor, its driver.

Case #2
The question here is whether race was a factor in the Port Authority’s denial of Vernon’s promotion. Job promotion in most cases depends on a person’s ability to produce results or the person’s competence. Vernon is an American citizen with a master’s degree in his profession. It is also said that he has been promoted to higher ranks in the past until the time when Rosenberg was promoted to a senior engineer. The criteria in which employees of The Port Authority are promoted is unknown because the memorandum written by Krishner stipulated that Rosenberg and Vernon were both operating at senior levels in their respective departments. The promotion of Rosenberg might be attributed to the fact that the organization wanted to balance the gender equality in its promotions because Rosenberg was a woman. Otherwise, racial discrimination can be considered as a basis for awarding promotions in this organization (Schwelb, 1996).
Moreover, the second promotion where a temporary employee who has been working for the Authority for only a year is promoted when Vernon, a loyal employee who has dedicated his time to the authority is ignored makes the authority look more inclined to racial discrimination. The two employees promoted instead of Vernon are all white and with the same or little education to Vernon’s which begs the question of which criteria this Authority was using to promote its employees because certainly it’s not based on loyalty, level of education, experience or competence.
Therefore, it is true that The Ports Authority’s denial of Vernon’s promotion is primarily based on racial factors. That because he is black, he is regarded as incapable of holding an important leadership position in the authority even when his skills and competence allows him to (Acker, 2006).

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441-464.
Fairman, C. (1946). The Supreme Court on Military Jurisdiction: Martial Rule in Hawaii and the Yamashita Case. Harvard Law Review, 833-882.
Schwelb, E. (1966). The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 15(04), 996-1068.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s