Evaluate Criminal Law and Legal Rights in a Business Context

Explain in a paper what you have learned about worksite protection for employees to address the following:

1. Under the decision in this case, when does a duty arise for the defendant Metro-North to protect its employees?
2. What does the court suggest that Metro-North should have done in this case that would have satisfied the duty?
3. May railroad workers invoke the Federal Employers' Liability Act to sue their employers for emotional distress due to asbestos, or some other disease-causing carcinogen, exposure if it has not made them ill? Why or why not?
4. What role do situational business ethics and moral relativism play in the employee’s personal circumstances and that of Metro-North’s ethical conduct in this case?
5. Provide a detailed summary of what steps the employer could have or should have taken to mitigate the situation.
6. What affect could this case have on your worksite?

Support your paper with minimum of five (5) resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 5 pages not including title and reference pages

Brief case

You will delve into the rights of the worker to perform work in a site that is as safe as possible; what are the worker’s rights if the worksite does not adequately protect the worker from harm? Michael Buckley was exposed to insulation dust containing asbestos while employed as a pipefitter by Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. Buckley feared he would develop cancer, of which periodic medical check-ups have revealed no evidence of an asbestos related disease. Buckley filed suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which permits a railroad worker to recover for an "injury . . . resulting from" his employer's "negligence." He sought damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress and to cover the cost of future check-ups (Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. V. Buckley, Overview & FELA 79 F3d 137)