QUESTION #1 (50%) Employment Law (Remember: back up your arguments with evidence) Assume the date is April 2022. Thanks to a new vaccination the coronavirus 19 is much less of a problem, and life is mostly back to "normal" but people are still being infected and a number of people are still dying. People still can't tell if they are infected and contagious. Kelsey owns St John's Pizza on Lombard St, which has take-out pizza as well as eat-in tables. Like a lot of fast-food outlets, St Johns' Pizza has fast turnover of its employees and is constantly hiring new workers. Concerned about the health of her staff and customers Kelsey requires all her employees to get a shot for the new vaccine. Various employers require their employees to be up-to-date with various medical vaccinations. Oregon law provides that an individual may get an "exemption from being required to take a medical vaccination if there is a valid medical reason or for 'sincere religious or philosophical objections to vaccination." The exemption application must be signed by a doctor. Kelsey advertises for an employee and interviews Kai who has a year's experience working at a similar local pizza shop in Seattle before he and his girlfriend moved to Portland. Kelsey tells Kai: "You look like a perfect fit--you're hired starting today. I'll set you up on our payroll system for $15/hr, and you can earn overtime if you want it. You can get right to work as soon as you bring me proof of your coronavirus 19 vaccination Kai signed a contract that described him as an "independent contractor" before he left the restaurant The next day Kal appears with a signed exemption certificate signed by his doctor. Kelsey responds: "Sorry, but I don't make exceptions on this--no vaccination, no job." The next day Kelsey gets a letter by FedEx delivery from a lawyer telling her "Kai, my client, objects to his wrongful firing. An Oregon employer cannot refuse to recognize a valid medical exemption. Kai will report for work on Monday morning. Otherwise we will sue for wrongful discharge." Required: Answer the following, giving reasons for your conclusions 1. What facts suggest Kai is really an employee not an independent contractor? 2. How would resolution of issue #1 affect Kai's legal rights here? 3. If Kai is found to be an "at will employee, can he be fired or let go for any reason? 4. Can Kelsey be forced to let Kal work without getting his shot? 4. If you were a judge, would you think this was a "wrongful discharge" under Oregon law? Question #2 (50%) Agency Law (Remember: back up your arguments with evidence) Tony had a small business that provided delivery service using three vans. Tony worked in the business along with three employees. Tony contracted with several local bicycle shops to deliver parts from manufacturer warehouses --usually in one hour--so the shops could promise their customers "same day repairs." This worked out really well and kept two of the vans busy every day. The vans were always back at Tony's business by 4 o'clock. Tony used the third van to deliver pastries to suburban offices. When the cornona 19 virus required restaurants to close their dining rooms, Tony contracted with several restaurants to make take-out deliveries after 4 o'clock--and the vans were busy from 8am -10 pm. His business continued after the shout- downs. Although Tony was only in his 30s, his doctor warned him that he might die if he contracted the virus due to his serious asthma and he needed to stay at home. With the vans busy 15 hours a day and Tony unable to drive, he needed a 4th driver. One of the drivers recommended his pal Kevin who had a clean driving record. Tony hired Kevin as an "independent contractor" because Tony thought he might need a 4th driver for a just few months. One night Kevin made his first of two take-out deliveries in the van. On the way back from the first stop he made a side-trip of about three miles to pick up some dinner for himself at his favorite fish & chip shop. On his way back from the fish & chip shop he crashed the van into a new parked BMW while putting tarter sauce on the fish while he was driving, Kevin noticed a body shop still open, and its owner told him: "I'm wide open tomorrow --I can fix the van's dented fender for $1,000, but for $5,000 I can also paint the whole van and it will look like new." Without calling Tony, Kevin responded: "Great. We'll go for the whole paint job. My boss is good for it. I'll drop the van off tomorrow." Required: Answer the following giving reasons for your conclusions. (Assume no car insurance is available] 1. Kevin's accident was caught by a camera at a nearby 7-11 clearly showing the van plowing into the legally-parked BMW. Damage to the BMW is $10,000. Who is liable for the damage to the BMW--Tony or Kevin? 2. Assume Tony has received the $5,000 body shop bill. Under agency law principles, is Tony liable on the deal Kevin made with the body shop (does Tony have to pay the full $5,000, a smaller amount, or perhaps nothing)