DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

Name

Capella university

DB-FPX 8410 Addressing Problems in Human Resources and Compliance

Prof. Name

Date

Critical Incident Analysis

Due to the high volume of complaint letters received and the associated risks, interviews were conducted with five key CapraTek employees regarding the incidents. An outside investigator performed the interviews to ensure objectivity. This analysis will identify any errors related to each wrongful death complaint and assess CapraTek’s potential legal liabilities and the severity of these risks. An evaluation of the interviewer’s performance will also be included, along with an explanation of confidentiality and protection measures for both CapraTek and the interviewed employees.

Actions, Errors, and Omissions

Michael Haskill 

Michael Haskill was an employee at the Alabama distribution plant where he was killed by a forklift. The complaint letter alleges a lack of training and certification. Due to low attendance caused by COVID-19, permission was granted for the forklift to be operated by an untrained employee. The operator admitted he was not certified. Mr. Haskill’s son is suing CapraTek for negligence.

Proper forklift safety training could have prevented this accident and saved significant legal fees (Importance of Forklift Training, n.d.). The error was that the employee did not receive proper training or certification to operate the forklift. The staff overseeing the Alabama site made a poor decision in allowing the untrained operation, resulting in a preventable death.

CapraTek could face legal liability for not adhering to OSHA Regulations (Standards-29 CFR), specifically 1910.178(I)(1)(i) and OSHA 29 CFR 1910.145(c) (United States Department of Labor, n.d.). The severity of this legal risk is high, as management authorized an uncertified employee to operate a forklift, failing to provide a safe environment with proper training (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

Bhashar Quan 

Bhashar Quan worked at CapraTek in Alabama for two weeks before contracting COVID-19 and subsequently dying. He informed his son that CapraTek was not following safety guidelines: social distancing was not enforced, masks were not mandated, and sanitization protocols were inadequate. His family is suing CapraTek for wrongful death due to negligence.

CapraTek’s failure to implement and enforce safety protocols for COVID-19 led to an unsafe working environment. When complaints were reported to HR, no action was taken, exacerbating the risk.

Potential legal liabilities include violations of OSHA standards 29 CFR 1910.1200, 1910.132, and 1910.141 regarding PPE and sanitation (United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.). The severity of legal risk is medium, as it could be argued that Mr. Quan did not contract the virus at work. More interviews should be conducted with employees who worked closely with Mr. Quan to assess the enforcement of safety protocols and potential exposure sources.

Boris Senty 

Boris Senty worked at the Illinois manufacturing plant for ten years and was a logistics engineer. He contracted COVID-19 and later died. His family has filed a wrongful death claim, alleging unsafe working conditions at CapraTek.

Errors include improper classification of essential and non-essential employees by HR, which could have allowed Mr. Senty to work from home. Lack of mandated safety measures contributed to the unsafe conditions.

Similar to Bhashar Quan’s case, CapraTek faces potential violations of OSHA standards 29 CFR 1910.1200, 1910.132, and 1910.141 (United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.). The severity of legal risk is medium to low, with potential for a discrimination case based on essential employee classification, although proving the virus was contracted at work is difficult. More interviews with employees who worked closely with Mr. Senty are needed.

Susan Harewood 

Susan Harewood was a UPS employee who delivered parts to the Atlanta manufacturing center and contracted COVID-19, later dying. Her family believes she contracted the virus due to CapraTek’s failure to follow CDC and OSHA safety recommendations.

CapraTek’s errors include allowing symptomatic employees to work, contributing to the spread of the virus. Potential liabilities are similar to the other COVID-19 cases, with CapraTek facing OSHA standard violations (United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.).

The legal risk in this case is low, as it is challenging to prove the virus was contracted at CapraTek. Interviews with UPS and staff at other delivery locations are necessary to determine if there were outbreaks elsewhere.

Richard Howell 

Richard Howell worked at the Illinois facility, where he allegedly contracted COVID-19, leading to his death. His family is suing CapraTek for negligence.

Errors and omissions are similar to those in Boris Senty’s case. The classification of essential employees could have allowed Mr. Howell to work from home, reducing his exposure risk.

Potential liabilities include violations of OSHA standards 29 CFR 1910.1200, 1910.132, and 1910.141 (United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.). The legal risk is low to medium, as it is difficult to prove the virus was contracted at CapraTek. However, the company’s failure to enforce safety measures increases the risk. More interviews with employees who worked closely with Mr. Howell are needed.

James Clarke

Sr. James Clarke, Sr. worked at the Atlanta location as a customer service representative and allegedly contracted COVID-19 there. His family has filed a wrongful death claim due to CapraTek’s neglect of safety protocols.

Errors and omissions are similar to those in Boris Senty and Richard Howell’s cases. The classification of essential employees could have allowed Mr. Clarke to work from home. CapraTek’s failure to enforce safety measures created a higher risk of virus spread.

Potential liabilities are similar to the other COVID-19 cases, with OSHA standard violations (United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, n.d.). The severity of legal risk is low to medium, as it is difficult to prove the virus was contracted at CapraTek. More interviews with employees who worked closely with Mr. Clarke are needed.

Additional Interview Questions and Participants

Interviews should be conducted with employees who worked directly with those involved in the complaints. For COVID-19 related deaths, the following questions should be asked: What happened? Were there employees exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 while working? Were symptomatic employees mandated to show proof of a negative COVID test? Were safety protocols such as social distancing, masks, and sanitation strictly enforced? Did the individual in question follow CapraTek’s safety protocols? Is there any other pertinent information?

For the forklift accident, employees who witnessed the incident should be interviewed. Questions should include: Are you aware of any other employees operating forklifts without proper training and certification? Can you describe what occurred at the time of the accident? What do you think led to the accident? What was the deceased employee doing at the time of the accident? Are there any other relevant details?

Interviewer Skills

The interviewer should have selected employees who worked closely with the deceased. While leaders’ perspectives on handling the pandemic were necessary, employees working directly with the deceased would provide more insight into workplace exposure. The questions asked were appropriate, but the interviewer could have expanded on the enforcement of protocols and asked for documented workflows and written safety protocols.

The interviewer did a thorough job explaining her role and representation to avoid confusion. However, she should have clarified the confidentiality and privilege implications for the employees. This knowledge could have influenced their responses or led them to seek legal representation.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Ms. Jones conducted professional interviews but did not adequately explain the implications of confidentiality and privilege for the employees. The employees might not have fully understood how this affected them, potentially altering their responses or prompting them to seek legal representation.

References

Importance of Forklift Training. (n.d.). Forklift Training Systems. Retrieved October 8, 2022, from https://www.forklifttrainingsystems.com/importance-of-forklift-training/

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-a). Employer Responsibilities. https://www.osha.gov/workers/employer-responsibilities

DB FPX 8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2021). Regulations (Standards – 29 CFR). https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/regulations/standardnumber/1910#1910_Subpart_I