Saudi Arabia and Laws Article Review

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 832 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 2

Page 1 of 3

Quinn v. Mongo case. At issue is a matter where an employee is a clear victim of age discrimination. However, there are more than one dimension to the case. One issue is that there is a home corporation and a subsidiary. The former has age discrimination laws but the latter does not. Also an issue is that the employee was signed onto a contract that required notice and a few other things but much of those were not followed. Lastly, there is the issue of what damages (if any) should be extended to the employee. While there are a few mitigating circumstances, Mongo is going to have to bite the bullet and do the right thing.

The first question to be answered is what the legal issues are in the case. The first was mentioned in the introduction and that would be what is a clear-cut case of employment discrimination (Lau & Johnson, 2012). What happened in Saudi Arabia is a clear violation of the ADEA even if Saudi Arabia has no such laws. Also at issue is that Quinn was to have received four weeks' notice before being terminated and that clearly did not happen as he was removed immediately.

Stuck Writing Your "Saudi Arabia and Laws" Article Review?

View All Our Example Saudi Arabia and Laws Article Review

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

The most important issue to consider is the differing laws and standards that exist between the two different countries. While Saudi Arabia is obviously "behind" when it comes to age and other discrimination laws, this does not absolve Mongo in the least. If they operate in Saudi Arabia or other countries with lesser laws, Mongo still has to abide by the laws of their home country and they also have to abide by the employment contract standards that exist in the same. Indeed, Mongo would have to comply with the laws of both countries or they would face ire and legal action from the country (or countries) where they fell short. Hammer surely knew about the contract but acted on the whim of the Royal Commission anyway and had Quinn removed. The only mitigating item for Mongo is that Quinn refused other projects that were offered to him after that. However, Mongo had a burden to ensure that Quinn was not treated unfairly and Quinn had no burden to accept other contracts (Lau & Johnson, 2016).

As for the ethical issues involved, both Hammer and Quinn obviously erred when it came to the situation. The one big….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Saudi Arabia And Laws" (2016, October 24) Retrieved May 13, 2024, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/saudi-arabia-laws-2162541

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Saudi Arabia And Laws" 24 October 2016. Web.13 May. 2024. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/saudi-arabia-laws-2162541>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Saudi Arabia And Laws", 24 October 2016, Accessed.13 May. 2024,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/saudi-arabia-laws-2162541
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example