DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

You are currently viewing DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

This critical incident analysis, titled “DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis,” will investigate complaints of wrongful death involving six employees. It will delve into potential omissions that might have played a role in these complaints. Additionally, it will assess the potential legal consequences for the business in accordance with the law. This evaluation will assess the skills of the interviewer and the level of legal risk associated with each complaint (García-Montoya & Mahoney, 2020).

Identification of Actions, Errors, and Omissions

After a comprehensive examination of the six wrongful death claims filed against CapraTek, it has become apparent that several actions, mistakes, and oversights may have impacted the potential legal accountability of the company. In the case of Michael Haskill, who tragically lost his life in a machinery-related accident, it is unlikely that CapraTek can be held legally responsible, given that Workers’ Compensation insurance covers the injury. Nevertheless, for the remaining five claims, CapraTek may potentially be exposed to legal liability under a range of statutes, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Johan & Ariawan, 2021).

For instance, consider the case of Richard Howell, who tragically lost his life to COVID-19. CapraTek’s potential legal responsibility could be linked to its adherence to OSHA regulations and standards. If CapraTek fails to ensure a safe and healthy working environment, which includes effective communication of its COVID-19 policies, it may face legal repercussions under OSHA. CapraTek’s failure to establish and communicate clear COVID-19 safety measures may result in potential legal repercussions under OSHA. This oversight violates OSHA standards, putting employees at risk of COVID-19 infection and contributing to potential wrongful death claims (Ekong et al., 2023).

DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

Similarly, in the situation involving Boris Senty in the “DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis,” CapraTek might be liable under OSHA if it neglects to provide sufficient safety measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to its employees, thereby violating OSHA standards. CapraTek’s failure to provide adequate safety measures and PPE for essential workers during the pandemic could lead to violations of OSHA standards. This oversight increases the risk of employee illness and potential legal actions against the company (Ekong et al., 2023).

Turning to Bhashar Quan, whose demise was also COVID-19-related, CapraTek’s potential liability may be determined by the guidelines outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If CapraTek designated Quan as an essential worker and required on-site work without making reasonable accommodations under the ADA or other pertinent laws, it could face legal consequences for his COVID-19-related passing. The misclassification of essential workers’ reasonable accommodations exposes CapraTek to potential legal issues under the ADA. This oversight may have violated ADA requirements, contributing to wrongful death claims (Hoffman, 2023).

Critical Incident Analysis

In the case of James Clarke, Sr., CapraTek’s potential legal liability, DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis,” might also be governed by OSHA regulations and the guidance provided by other governmental entities. If, for instance, local authorities recommended a plant shutdown due to COVID-19 concerns, but CapraTek refused to comply, they might be subject to OSHA violations and other legal actions under relevant laws. CapraTek’s refusal to comply with local authorities’ recommendations for plant shutdown may result in OSHA violations and legal actions. Non-compliance demonstrates a disregard for employee safety, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes (Johnson, 2020).

You might be interested in MHA 5010 Assessment 1

Lastly, regarding Susan Harewood, who was not a CapraTek employee but a delivery driver on their premises, CapraTek’s potential liability could be influenced by a variety of laws, including OSHA and the ADA. Suppose Harewood contracted COVID-19 while on CapraTek’s premises due to inadequate safety measures or unclear communication of policies. In that case, CapraTek might be exposed to legal action under these laws, as well as possible negligence claims. CapraTek’s negligence in protecting non-employee visitors like Susan Harewood may lead to negligence claims and possible violations of OSHA and ADA regulations. This oversight could contribute to legal actions against the company (Litor, 2022).

Numerous actions, oversights, and missteps by CapraTek’s management and HR department in the DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis could have played a role in the six wrongful death claims against the company. The extent of potential legal liability depends on the unique circumstances of each case, including factors like essential worker status, the adequacy of safety measures and PPE, and the clarity of communication regarding COVID-19 policies (Chan, 2020).

Potential Legal Liabilities

Unprepared employers run the risk of facing lawsuits such as workers’ compensation claims, invasion of privacy allegations, discrimination charges, unfair labor practices, and negligence lawsuits, including those initiated by government agencies like EEOC and OSHA. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and mandates reasonable accommodations for qualified employees unless it poses an undue hardship. CapraTek’s misclassification of essential workers without considering reasonable accommodations could lead to ADA violations and contribute to wrongful death claims, particularly in the case of Bhashar Quan (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

For instance, there is the case of James Clark, an employee at a Georgia plant. His family might be able to convince a jury that his infection resulted from regular exposure to workplace conditions and environments, as highlighted in the DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) sets safety and health standards, which CapraTek’s potential violation may stem from, resulting in legal consequences, notably in the cases of Richard Howell, Boris Senty, and James Clarke, Sr. However, the family needs to meet two critical criteria: firstly, they cannot explain why the general public is not exposed to the virus, and secondly, it is improbable that individuals outside the workplace would contract the disease. To qualify for coverage, the employee must demonstrate that the illness arose unexpectedly during a specific process or trade to which they were exposed (Piroșcă et al., 2021). 

DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) hints at potential legal exposure if CapraTek fails to comply with FMLA requirements in relation to medical leave. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidelines and is referenced in the context of CapraTek’s potential liability, particularly in Quan’s case, regarding reasonable accommodations as recommended by the EEOC. All of these aspects are vital for evaluating CapraTek’s legal accountability amid the six wrongful death claims (Piroșcă et al., 2021).

  1. Allegations

Furthermore, CapraTek might be accused of not enforcing CDC and OSHA guidelines, potentially leading to claims of negligence or recklessness. In their defense, it could be argued that they adhered to Governor Kemp’s executive order, which mandated non-critical essential businesses to operate with reduced staff and adhere to specified COVID-19 prevention measures. The defense might also contend that the company adhered to relevant laws and regulations to protect itself from legal liability. Georgia laws serve as a shield against legal liability, asserting that CapraTek failed to adhere to CDC and OSHA regulations and chose to resolve the issue through non-legal means (Dannecker & Schröder, 2023).

The severity of the Legal Risks

After reviewing each complaint, including the DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis it is clear that the level of legal risk varies for each case. The extent of CapraTek’s liability could be influenced by the policies and guidelines established by different government entities. In the case of Michael Haskill, CapraTek’s potential legal liability is likely limited since Workers’ Compensation insurance covers the injury, and claims of negligence against employers are typically prohibited under workers’ compensation laws in all states. CapraTek may choose to defend itself by showing compliance with OSHA guidelines and regulations to minimize potential fines (Kuehne, 2022).

On the other hand, the Harewood claim, which asserts that CapraTek failed to close the plant in response to local officials’ recommendations, resulting in the plaintiff’s exposure to COVID-19 and subsequent death, could have serious legal repercussions. CapraTek’s management and HR department might be held responsible for not implementing adequate safety measures and communication policies related to COVID-19, potentially violating OSHA regulations and other government guidelines. CapraTek may argue that it adhered to all the guidelines and protocols pertaining to COVID-19 and that the plaintiff’s contact with the infected employee was beyond the company’s control (G. Mujtaba & A. Kaifi, 2023).

The Quan claim raises concerns about CapraTek’s compliance with OSHA, EEOC, and other government guidelines regarding COVID-19 safety measures. CapraTek’s management may be found liable for not providing employees with adequate safety measures and personal protective equipment (PPE). CapraTek could assert a defense by demonstrating compliance with federal or state guidelines for COVID-19 safety measures and argue that, as an essential worker, Quan was required to be on-site. The company followed all the guidelines to ensure the safety of its employees (G. Mujtaba & A. Kaifi, 2023).

DB FPX8410 Assessment 3

The Clarke lawsuit, which seeks damages exceeding $2.575 million, carries significant legal implications for both CapraTek’s management and its HR department. CapraTek may potentially be held liable for not heeding local authorities’ advice to close the plant, potentially violating COVID-19 government guidelines. However, the company might argue that it was in compliance with these guidelines and made the decision to stay operational based on its assessment of the situation (Lobschat et al., 2019).

As for the Howell claim, the extent of legal risk to CapraTek remains uncertain due to limited available information. Nonetheless, the company could face liability if it is proven that it lacked proper COVID-19 policies and guidelines in place. In defense, CapraTek may assert adherence to federal or state COVID-19 safety measures and argue that Howell, as an essential worker, had to be on-site. The company has taken all necessary precautions to ensure employee safety (Lobschat et al., 2019).

DB FPX8410

The Boris Senty claim, seeking damages amounting to $2.5 million, hinges on whether CapraTek followed COVID-19 safety measures as outlined by guidelines and protocols. CapraTek might contend that, as an engineer, Senty had the capability to work from home, and requiring him to be on-site was based on business necessities. They would likely emphasize compliance with federal or state COVID-19 guidelines to mitigate potential legal consequences (Lobschat et al., 2019).DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

It is important to note that the level of legal liability faced by CapraTek varies for each claim and could depend on adherence to policies and guidelines established by different regulatory bodies such as OSHA, EEOC, and relevant authorities. To mitigate potential legal repercussions, CapraTek may assert different defenses, including compliance with COVID-19 guidelines or the business necessity for certain employees to be on-site. Cases related to COVID-19 are particularly complex as they raise questions about CapraTek’s responsibility to safeguard its employees’ well-being. However, the severity of the legal risk differs for each claim and may also hinge on the plaintiff’s ability to substantiate their case (Szalados, 2021).

Skills of the Interviewer

The interviewer’s choice of key employees for the interviews was appropriate. However, it was essential to include other employees who might have witnessed the events and the claimant’s family members to gather any missing details. While the questions asked were relevant, some of them were leading, creating a confrontational atmosphere. A more effective approach would have involved using open-ended questions in a systematic or chronological order to elicit more pertinent information. In terms of the interview’s comprehensiveness, there were missed opportunities to steer the conversation towards obtaining more relevant information. For example (DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis), when interviewing Margaret Leone, the HR manager on-site, the interviewer needed to ask sufficient follow-up questions to gain a deeper understanding of the on-ground situation. Additionally, there needed to be more probing to uncover more details about Haskell’s forklift accident (Zboun & Farrah, 2021).

DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis

The interviewer should have inquired about the timeline for implementing COVID-19 safety measures at each plant, the level of compliance across plants, and how each safety measure was implemented at individual plants. It was also crucial to investigate the circumstances of each worker before they fell ill, including whether they continued working, sought medical care, or if others around them were infected. At times, the interviewees were able to guide the conversation in a particular direction, which resulted in missing out on some pertinent information. The interviewer should have been more assertive in steering the conversation to extract more relevant details. Although the interviewees confirmed some of the plaintiffs’ claims, such as the lack of PPE and social distancing measures, the accuracy of this information could be clearer, given the presence of leading questions. Finally, it is still being determined whether the assurance of interview confidentiality could be made without qualification. This aspect should have been verified in advance (Ingram et al., 2021).

Interview Skills 

In terms of her interviewing skills for the DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis, a more systematic approach employing a structured set of open-ended questions would have been beneficial. The interviewer highlighted the mistakes made by the individuals being questioned but missed an opportunity to validate the information by asking follow-up questions. She only partially consulted employees like Tsu and Hyes when she should have been more explicit about the focus of the investigation, which was the workers’ potential imprudence and carelessness. She did effectively communicate the private nature of the interview and assured the workers that any information provided would remain confidential. However, given the complexity of the situation and the numerous employees involved in the company’s decision-making during the COVID-19 crisis, selecting the key individuals for the interviews presented a challenge. She opted to consult those representatives directly engaged in the process or linked to the workers’ deaths, which, in my opinion, was a suitable approach. Utilizing previous meeting recordings after the event proved valuable during the interview process, enabling a comparative analysis of ideas. Overall, her skills were satisfactory, but there is room for improvement, particularly in terms of the depth of the interviews and the use of open-ended questions to draw out more pertinent information (Buschle et al., 2021).

DB FPX8410 Assessment 3

In addition to these five key employees, it would be beneficial to interview other individuals who witnessed the situation. For example, an interview could be arranged with Terry Webb, the General Manager of the Illinois plant. Terry had direct exposure to the issues and received grievances from plant employees. He could provide further insight into these complaints and the actions taken in response (Buschle et al., 2021).


In conclusion, this DB FPX8410 Assessment 3 Critical Incident Analysis has explored the complaints of wrongful death involving six employees at CapraTek. It has identified potential actions, errors, and omissions that may have contributed to the legal accountability of the company. Each complaint carries a varying degree of legal risk, contingent upon factors such as adherence to governmental guidelines and protocols, the adequacy of safety measures, and individual circumstances. Overall, the analysis underscores the complexity and seriousness of the legal challenges faced by CapraTek and the need for a comprehensive and meticulous approach to address these concerns.


Buschle, C., Reiter, H., & Bethmann, A. (2021). The qualitative pretest interview for questionnaire development: outline of program and practice. Quality & Quantity, 56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01156-0

Chan, H. Y. (2020). Hospitals’ Liabilities in times of pandemic: Recalibrating the legal obligation to provide personal protective equipment to healthcare workers. Liverpool Law Review, 42(2)

Dannecker, G., & Schröder, T. (2023). Companies as responsible actors and corporate citizens—Corporate criminal responsibility under the rule of law as a consequence. Springer EBooks, 445–471. 

Ekong, M. O., George, W. K., Pandey, B. K., & Pandey, D. (2023). Enhancing the fundamentals of industrial safety management in TVET for metaverse realities. www.igi-Global.com; IGI Global. 

G. Mujtaba, B., & A. Kaifi, B. (2023). Safety audit considerations for a healthy workplace that puts “people before profit” and OSHA compliance. Health Economics and Management Review, 4(1), 11–25. 

García-Montoya, L., & Mahoney, J. (2020). Critical event analysis in case study research. Sociological Methods & Research, 52, 004912412092620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120926201

Hoffman, B. (2023, January 28). Accommodating disabilities in the post-COVID-19 workplace. Social Science Research Network. 

Ingram, C., Downey, V., Roe, M., Chen, Y., Archibald, M., Kallas, K.-A., Kumar, J., Naughton, P., Uteh, C. O., Rojas-Chaves, A., Shrestha, S., Syed, S., Cléirigh Büttner, F., Buggy, C., & Perrotta, C. (2021). COVID-19 Prevention and control measures in workplace settings: A rapid review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15). 

Johan, S., & Ariawan, A. (2021). Corporate liability for creditors’ losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jurnal Media Hukum, 28(1), 15–28. 

Johnson, M. S. (2020). Regulation by shaming: Deterrence effects of publicizing violations of workplace safety and health laws. American Economic Review, 110(6), 1866–1904. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180501

Kuehne, T. (2022). Immigration and employment federalism: State courts and workers’ compensation for unauthorized workers. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 43, 415. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/berkjemp43&div=13&id=&page=

Litor, L. (2022). Corporate social responsibility policies and practices on unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case studies of Israel and United States. Public Administration and Policy, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-02-2022-0011

Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S., Kroschke, M., & Wirtz, J. (2019). Corporate digital responsibility. Journal of Business Research, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.006

Piroșcă, G. I., Șerban-Oprescu, G. L., Badea, L., Stanef-Puică, M.-R., & Valdebenito, C. R. (2021). Digitalization and labor market—A perspective within the framework of pandemic crisis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 2843–2857. 

Szalados, J. E. (2021). Regulations and regulatory compliance: False Claims Act, Kickback and Stark Laws, and HIPAA. The Medical-Legal Aspects of Acute Care Medicine, 277–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68570-6_12Zboun, J., & Farrah, M. (2021). Students’ perspectives of online language learning during Corona pandemic: Benefits and challenges. Dspace.hebron.edu. http://dspace.hebron.edu/jspui/handle/123456789/1144