Answer:
c. She should tell him that he should have a policy provided to all employees offering to correct any offensive conduct, and that an unreasonable failure by an employee to take advantage of corrective opportunities offered through the policy would help him avoid liability.
Explanation:
This is most likely what Kiera should tell Richard. It is true that employers are generally liable for cases of discrimination and harassment at their own place of business. This is because such cases often indicate a lack of overview and proper management. However, one way to avoid such liability would be by having a policy offered to all employees offering to correct any offensive conduct.
The factor should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed.
For better understanding let's explain what tort interference means
- There are two types of tortious interference
- Tortious interference with contract
- Tortious interference with good economic advantage.
- Tort interference is regarded as an issue where one party was involved in something or does a thing to intentionally disregard another party’s business transactions or project
From the above we can therefore say that the answer the factors should a plaintiff consider when deciding which interference tort applies to a situation is that:
- The plaintiff must a contract that is with a third party;
- The defendant must know about the contract at the time of the alleged interference
- The defendant must have interfered intentionallly and the interference was not right
- The actions of defendant’s led to a breach of the contract
- The plaintiff has suffered some measure of damage as a result
- The defendant knew a contract between the plaintiff and a third party existed is correct
Learn more Tort interference from:
brainly.com/question/15058912
I am guessing the answer is number three if I am correct let me know
Writes laws mark me brainliest please
