Scholarly Case Analysis
Scholarly Case Analysis
Modern human society is represented by very different people and groups of people with various backgrounds, life styles, habits, and types of communication. According to this fact, we can hardly disagree that often this pluralism is the primary reason of conflicts between those who study, work, or are involved into some other kind of social activities together. In case personal insult, it is possible to take an abuser to a court and see whether opinions on the situation of both sides are objective or not. Every day there are thousands of court sessions all over the world where a judge and a trial jury decide if somebody is guilty and which punishment to endure.
The case of examination in this paper is Garay v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corp (United States District Court, E.D. New York. Sept. 3, 2013). The plaintiff is Jamie Garay, pro se. The defendants are Richard Scatoni and William Shaun Riley, the representatives of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp, in their official and individual capacities. The plaintiff took defendants to the court because she considers herself a victim of discrimination, being abused by her colleagues. Officially, this person has been working for Novartis Pharmaceuticals since May 2004 until the conflict, which took place in the company at the end of 2010. All facts prove that Jamie Garay was hard-working and diligent employee; therefore, the presumptive abuse (if it was real) was unmotivated from the side of her colleague. The plaintiff tells that she was verbally abused, degraded, and bullied by Richard Scatoni, who used foul, offensive language during an ordinary conversation in October 2010 (Garay v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corp.) After two months, Garay was fired from her job; and she finds a hidden connection between this event and the incident in October 2010. She is sure that there is some type of discrimination against her age from the side of both Richard Scatoni and William Shaun Riley who are connected in a professional way (and maybe have the same negative attitude against the plaintiff). Therefore, she put these two personalities to trial in order to restore the justice.
In its turn, the court headed by Joanna Seybert, district judge, must decide to resolve such things as:
Read also: "Academic Book Review: How to Complete It"
1) If the discrimination against age really took place in the company;
2) If the letter about Garay's dismissal (December 2010) is connected with the presumptive discrimination from the side of Scatoni (October 2010);
3) If Scatoni and Riley are guilty;
4) If Garay is truly a victim of discrimination and abuse and who should win the case.
During the discussion, the trial jury concludes that the complaint of Jamie Garay must be dismissed, and the case must be closed. The reasoning, which has led to this decision, is quite simple. The members of the court claim that the plaintiff was not able to prove the causal connection between the so-called act of discrimination against age and her dismissal because the notice of layoff does not contain any hidden implication or visible references to such a reason of being terminated as age. As a result, the system of law is not able to take any measures against something that happened theoretically but has no documentary or material evidences.
In my opinion, it is a fundamental problem of the whole jurisdiction that has privileges to decide if the defendant guilty or not. That is a great weakness of the legal system; if a problem is not fixed with the help of something we can apprehend with any of our receptors, then nobody can help to find the right exit from the situation. Nobody can know exactly if Jamie Garay was abused and felt some kind of discrimination from the side of her colleagues because she has no recorded tape, which allows hearing that offensive language. The jury can suppose that she is cheating just to get a benefit from the successful closing of the case. This assumption has sense because her arguments are not strong enough to prove the mean nature of people who could play an intentional trick with this woman. At the first blush, the case is closed, but is it really closed? There is an opposition between philosophers of law, psychologists, and other representatives of humanities and lawyers. If to look at this problem in terms of personal background and the course Human Resources, the opposition is right, not lawyers. They do not take into account many moments, one if which is the correlation between law and morality.
If we take only the sphere of law, this case is normal one. However, we should remember that laws are created to regulate the behavior and common social life of human beings, which are not machine but living organisms. It looks like the correlation between law and morality is not developed enough nowadays (as well as before). Nevertheless, a number of researchers touch upon this question in their books trying to find out how moral requirements should and can correlate with laws. For example, Kent Greenawalt writes, Understanding to what extent the law seriously claims obedience is crucial to an inquiry into a possible moral obligation to obey. Since a general moral requirement to obey is unlikely to be broader than the law's demand for obedience, plausible theories about moral obligations to obey are effectively circumscribed by the extent of the law's demands (Greenawalt, 1989). It is true that the field of morality is much wider than the field of law, but people still prefer to limit themselves. Studying Human Resources proves that there should be not only lawyers in every company but also other specialists connected with psychology and ethics. It could provide no conflict between the aforementioned plaintiff and defendants if there was such a specialist in the Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Human resources is a special kind of resources that should be treated well not only physically but also spiritually. Therefore, morality professionals are necessary for the successful human resource management. For example, they should organize trainings on professional ethics, mutual understanding and discrimination, basics of moral behavior, and so on. That is the way to remember about human component, which is also extremely influential on the plane of corporation's development.
In order to summarize, I want to repeat that legal system still needs new appendixes that would correlate with not only rationality but also morality. Rationality asks to provide documentary and material proofs, which cannot show the whole picture of situation sometimes. Therefore, there should be new researches in the field of Human Resources to add emphasis to the moral component of working process. Thus, it would be possible to avoid such conflicts as in the case of Garay and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for Garay v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings