Orange Inc. has hired an unpaid intern from a nearby law school to assist you as head of HR in identifying key issues that may impact the business going forward. Your intern recently completed her second year of law school and has been studying Employment Law in particular. She came across a series of cases relating to workplace safety which she thought were relevant to our workforce at Lemonade Inc. and asked for your guidance on how the relevant case law would apply with respect to our policies and practices at Lemonade Inc. In each case, provide your analysis to the questions your intern asked. If appropriate, include citations to any materials from our readings, lectures or other resources you think appropriate. label your answers (1A, 1B, etc.) as appropriate. 1. Your intern came across the following facts from a recent case: A flight attendant had made her last flight of the day and proceeded with other flight crew members to a hotel. Her next scheduled flight was early the next morning. On the way back from a restaurant the crew had visited near the hotel, the flight attendant fell on a slushy sidewalk and injured her knees and wrists. The sidewalk was public property and the location of the fall was about thirty feet from the entrance to the hotel. The flight attendant missed five weeks of work due to her injuries. The airline she worked for booked and paid for employees' hotel accommodations. When off duty but traveling as part of their job, flight attendants at this airline are paid an hourly amount, much lower than their normal rate of pay during flights, to cover expenses such as food. The court case asked should the flight attendant's injuries be covered under workers' compensation laws? See Osten v. Bureau of Workers' Comp., 2017-Ohio-9315 (2d App. Dist.). https://casetext.com/case/osten-v-bureau-of-workers-comp/ The appeals court confirmed the finding of the trial court that the employee was on a personal errand at the time of her injury, and so was not entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits. Your intern is concerned that at our Lemonade Inc. Ohio branch, our store managers typically send the Lemon Selection Team out on multiple day trips where the purchasers are compensated in a similar manner for their overnight stays while waiting for Lemon auctions and selections to be completed. A. Would a similar injury on 'personal time' require coverage under workers compensation laws?

B. What policies should be put in place at Lemonade Inc. to ensure that as a business, Lemonade Inc. is protected against liability from similar events? 2. Your intern came across the following facts from a recent case: In February 2014, shooting began for Midnight Rider, a film based on the lives of the Allman brothers. The film was never completed. As the film crew set up to shoot a scene on an active train trestle owned by CSX Transportation, a freight train barreled through, killing a 27-year old camera assistant and seriously injuring several other film crew members. The director and producers in charge of the film knew that the railroad tracks were in active use and that CSX had refused permission to film on the tracks. Film crew and cast members were not informed that CSX would not be on site and would not be controlling train traffic while they were filming on the tracks. The case asked did the film company violate the OSHA's general duty clause? Were the director and producers criminally responsible? See Film Allman, L.L.C. v. Sec'y of Labor, 682 Fed. Appx. 860 (11th Cir. 2017) https://www.oshrc.gov/assets/1/6/14-1385.pdf?226 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1853416.html Also see Michael Cieply. "Midnight Rider' Director Pleads Guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter in Death on Set." New York Times (March 10, 2015), B3. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/business/media/randall-miller-film-director-pleads- guilty-in-midnight-rider-manslaughter-trial.html?searchResultPosition=1 The court found that the film company violated OSHA's general duty clause because it failed at every opportunity to ensure the safety of its employees. The firm knew the tracks were live, and that they planned to film without permission to use the site, but did not tell any of its employees any of these facts. They failed at every opportunity to take any precautions whatsoever. They put their employees in great jeopardy, and did not notify them of the danger. A. Your intern asked what guidelines we should put in place for filming an upcoming Lemonade Inc. commercial at a nearby shopping mall during normal business hours. B. Comment generally on whether OSHA requirement provide an undue burden on business needs or whether employee needs are not protected enough under current law. 3. Your intern came across the following facts from a recent case:

F24 Employment Law Week 11 Assignment A woman worked out of her home full time in accordance with a long-standing telecommuting arrangement with her employer. On the day in question, she had been working and stopped to make some lunch. While preparing lunch, her doorbell rang and she answered the door. The person at the door was a neighbor with whom she was casually acquainted. The two chatted briefly. The neighbor left, but returned very shortly thereafter, claiming that he had left his keys behind on the kitchen counter. Without explanation or other intervening events, the neighbor once back inside the house proceeded to brutally assault the woman, leaving her with numerous severe injuries. The woman filed a claim for workers' compensation that was contested by her employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier. The case asked is the woman eligible for workers' compensation for her injuries? See Wait v. Travelers Indemnity, 240 S.W.2d 220 (Tenn. 2007). https://casetext.com/case/wait-v-travelers-indem-co The issue was whether the plaintiff's injuries from the assault that occurred in her home during her workday arose out of and in the course of employment, making her eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits. The court decided that while her injuries occurred in the course of her employment, they did not arise out of her employment. Thus, she was not eligible for workers' compensation. The court deemed the assault in this case to be a "neutral force assault," one that is neither inherently connected to employment nor to some personal dispute between the plaintiff and assailant. The court then considered whether the "street risk" doctrine would apply. If an employee's job exposes that employee to the hazards of the streets and that is an inherent danger in the type of employment, an injury that thereby occurs is causally related to employment. The "street" risk doctrine is not limited to hazards encountered when using streets and highways. It applies more generally to risks stemming from exposure to the general public as part of one's employment. However, the court distinguished this case from others in which the street risk doctrine applied. "Unlike our previous cases in which the facts supported application of the "street risk" doctrine to provide the necessary causal connection, the facts here do not establish that the plaintiff's employment exposed her to a street hazard or that she was singled out for her association with her employer. There is nothing to indicate that she was targeted because of her association with her employer or that she was charged with safeguarding her employer's property. Additionally, the plaintiff was not advancing the interests of the ACS when she allowed Sawyers into her kitchen, and her employment with the ACS did not impose any duty upon the plaintiff to admit Sawyers to her home. The plaintiff argues that had it not been for her employment arrangement, she would not have been at home to suffer these attacks. However, we have never held that any and every assault which occurs at the work site arises out of employment. Unlike our prior decisions, the facts do not show that Sawyers attacked the plaintiff because she was identifiable as an ACS employee, or because she was performing a job duty, or because she was safeguarding the ACS's property. The "street risk" doctrine is not a limitless means of allowing recovery for every situation. As such,

F24 Employment Law Week 11 Assignment this case presents us with an opportunity to outline the boundaries of the doctrine. When an employee suffers a "neutral assault" within the confines of her employer's premises - whether the premises be a home office or a corporate office - the "street risk" doctrine will not provide the required causal connection between the injury and the employment unless the proof fairly suggests either that the attacker singled out the employee because of his or her association with the employer or that the employment indiscriminately exposed the employee to dangers from the public." Your intern has been reviewing the 'work from home' policies that were instituted during the Covid Pandemic which granted generous opportunities for employees to continue to stay away from the office during the workday. In this context, she also wondered whether broader policies covering both work from home and work while out of the office such as in Question 1 above are properly crafted. When asking about what those policies were, you noticed that they are actually mostly silent on what employees can and can't do while working out of the office. A. Summarize for your intern the arguments FOR crafting policies as a business with respect to employee activity outside the office. B. Summarize for your intern the arguments AGAINST forcing a business to institute, monitor and police their employee activities in these instances. C. Generally speaking, government policy has favored an approach that limits the amount of employee recovery in workers compensation claims (while making the process of obtaining compensation easier), which provides cost limitations and stability to employers. Comment on whether the 'balancing of interests' between employees and employers in this context has been appropriately applied