Legal Reasoning and Research

Legal Reasoning and Research

Legal reasoning and research are a combination of fact finding and dissection of possible legal allegations that may threaten a business. Businesses and/or organizations are held to the same legal responsibility as an individual. Being able to understand how a particular businesses and/or organization are affected by legal issues is important for retaining employees and building a successful brand.

Legal reasoning is pertinent in business because an organization is held to the same legal regard as an individual or group and is also vulnerable to multiple legal situations based upon the legal issued presented to the company. Legal reasoning requires a specific form of dissection utilizing a methodical method to investigate any present legal issue, determine its relevancy to the company and also seek assistance if the information provided is deemed detrimental or effects the companies public image (Moffat, 2014). An organization should be able to identify and issues that may result in legal case if the information being presented is analyzed and dissecting according to legal reasoning standards.

Legal research provides an organization with insight on similar legal instances that may have occurred, how the organization combated the legal issue and what was the final result of the legal issue. Legal research allows and organization to understand the process of multiple legal issues that have previously occurred with other companies (Moffat, 2016). Understanding how other companies dissected previous legal situations gives an organization foresight into how to prevent a legal issue from occurring or how to combat the legal issue from multiple angles instead being unknowledgeable about the legal issue and having to create their own knowledge base without any prior information.

Combing legal reasoning and research provides and organization with a consistent standard governed by legal ethics to ensure the organization is following mandated legalities at all times. Being aware of how legal issues can affect the organization and how to effectively counter the legal situation when they arise promotes methodical critical thinking on behalf of the management team (Moffat, 2014). Being able to develop a sound reasoning on a possible legal situation that is combined with legal reasoning will in turn benefit the organization because they would not only be able to be proactive but reactive when legal issues arise.

Legal reasoning and research are a beneficial and educational tool that provide objective and subjective perceptions of possible legal situations that may arise in a organization. Using specific identifiers when conducting research gives a basis for what to look for, how prevalent that particular legal issue is, what issues are presented before the court, whether the action taken by the court is criminal or civil, what the final outcome of the case was and how the jurisdiction could have potential effects on a current business and/or organization (Moffat, 2016). The combination of all these factors makes for sound legal reasoning and research because it allows the organization to view the legal issues in its entirety while also dissecting the organizations own standings in similar instances.

When determining what identifiers to use for legal research be sure the identifiers are as specific as possible in order to minimize the results be given. The first initial search provided over 1000 results because of the vague identifiers, sexual harassment and supreme court appeals. In order to minimize the amount of results more specific information should be provided. For example, instead of just using sexual harassment and supreme court appeals, the third identifier of male employees was added minimizing the results to 37 cases.

It is important to keep in mind that even though the results have been minimized that does not mean that the provided results will contain the needed information the researcher is seeking to investigate the legal issues. More than one specific identifier search maybe needed in order to narrow done the case that closely relates to the legal issue being investigated. For example, the case being researched was sexual harassment concerning male employees with specific focus on gender. The results turned up similar cases that were beneficial to the research. Once the results have been minimized the next process is choosing a case which will expound upon the legal research being conducted.

The case chosen was Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt. The parties in this case were the plaintiffs-appellants, Gregory S. Hawn, Michael R. Prince and Aric A. Aldrich. The defendant-appellee in this case is Executive Jet Management Inc. The plaintiff is suing based on alleged gender discrimination stemming from previous sexual harassment allegations (Hawn v. Exec Jet Mgmt, 2008). Hawn, Prince and Aldrich, pilots, and unnamed female flight attendant all worked for Executive Jet Management. The actions in the case concluded that the male pilots being terminated for sexual harassment while the female flight attendant, who assumingly participated and/or initiated the same form of harassment was not included in the termination process even though she took presumingly participated in the verbal exchange. Based upon the provided information both parties exchanged inappropriate sexually affiliated banter on multiple occasions. The plaintiffs argued the reason for their termination was not because of the sexual harassment but because they were males participating in the inappropriate banter while their female coworker received no form of reprimand because she was female.

The legal issued presented before the court was to determine whether the female flight attendant was an active participant in the misconduct which resulted in the termination of the plaintiffs and if so why were only the male parties terminated instead of the female as well. Assumingly both parties participated in an exchange of inappropriate sexually affiliated conduct. The court must determine if there is legal evidence to first support the claim of sexual harassment for one, both or either party. According to Hawn v. Exe Jet Mgmt. (2008), the flight attendant’s allegations could not be validated because the flight attendant was a willing participate in multiple instances where inappropriate sexually affiliated conduct ensued. Even though the flight attendant retained the argument that the accusations did not stem from the