Haworth was the blood bank supervisor at the Deborah Heart and Lung Center within the Deborah Hospital. Part of the responsibility of the blood bank was to collect blood samples from patients and to test those samples. The blood bank also ensured that there was an adequate supply of the proper blood type for the patient when the patient underwent surgery. Following an argument with his supervisor, Haworth destroyed an entire rack of patient blood samples. Following a leave of absence due to ‘‘stress,’’ Haworth was offered a less stressful—but lower-level—job. Haworth refused to accept this reassignment, and the hospital discharged him at that time. Haworth claimed the discharge violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). He alleged that the destruction of the blood samples was a communicative act designed to show his objection to an allegedly defective blood identification system and that the discharge was an illegal retaliatory act by the hospital.
NEW JERSEY CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (“CEPA”) (N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq.) (3/10)
RAYMOND HAWORTH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DEBORAH HEART AND LUNG CENTER AND BETSY SCHLOO, M.D. AND PETER WARD, INDIVIDUALLY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
What are communicative acts*? Where do communicative acts fit into pragmatics?
Kant’s Moral Philosophy- The categorical imperative
(Chapter 2: Business Ethics – Read Entire Chapter)
Just Cause vs. Employment-At-Will, by Michael Holzschu