The case method utilized in business schools is also used in American law schools. It relies on the principle that the most effective way to learn American law is to scrutinize judicial opinions which have become the law.
Law school cases allow students to discern a legal rule, prompting students to test their knowledge in simulated situations. This sensitivity towards facts and reliance on previous judicial rulings is deeply imbedded in the legal system in the United States.
Germany‘s Grundgesetz or Basic Law is the equivalent of a constitution. Artikel 65 of the Grundgesetz defines the working relationship between the Chancellor and the cabinet:
„The Federal Chancellor defines and is responsible for the overall political goals of the government. Within the framework of these goals each cabinet member is responsible for leading their department independently.”
It continues:
“Differences of opinion among cabinet members are clarified by the Chancellor and the other cabinet members. The Chancellor leads the government based on a political platform formulated by the Chancellor and the cabinet, and which has been approved of by the Federal President.“
The Human Resources departments in American companies – especially large ones – have become very careful in how they handle employee performance appraisals. Not only because they strive to develop their talent, but also in order to avoid lawsuits. Even well-designed appraisals can lead to a lawsuit if they are poorly implemented or applied in an inconsistent manner.
Because U.S. labor courts continue to make exceptions to the once solid At-Will doctrine, employers face greater requirements to prove legitimate business reasons for many personnel actions.
At-Will employment is a term used in American labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason and without warning.The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.
At-Will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most states during the late 19th century. Over the 20th century many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether.
Again, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states clearly what Americans expect: „In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“
Various U.S. state and federal laws guaranty a more specific right to a speedy trial. In New York, for example, the prosecution (accuser) must be ready for trial within six months or the charges are dismissed. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 established time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal case.
Americans anticipate that there team leads not only hold a first hearing promptly. They want the conflict resolution process to come to a conclusion, to a judgement, promptly as well. A manager who is slow to decide – to make the „judgement call“ – is seen as someone who has weak resolve. To have resolve means to deal with something.
Americans believe that maintaining forward movement is critical to the success of every team.
There have been many famous repeals or court decisions in American history. In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal (the American slogan for segregation of white and black Americans) was no longer constitutional, an act that negated their earlier ruling in 1896.
The first case in the U.S. in which the court system determined that a law was unconstitutional and should be repealed occurred in 1803. It was the case of Marbury v Madison, when the Supreme Court decided that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore null and void.
The case of Betts v Brady ruled that the 6th and 14th Amendments of the constitution guaranteeing a right to legal counsel does not mean that the government has to provide counsel for someone who cannot afford it. Later, the case Gideon v Wainwright overruled this decision, and anyone accused of a crime is entitled to free counsel if he/she can’t afford an attorney.
Even if an American loses a conflict within a company, after having escalated it once or twice, if he/she strongly believes to be in the right, it is not uncommon for that American to seek an even higher authority – the public at large. When that happens, the person who exposes the conflict is called a “whistleblower.”
Edward Snowden was working for the NSA when he publicly accused them of spying. Snowden said that the reason why he decided to make his accusations public was that he “can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”
In 2014, former State Department official John Tye wrote an editorial in The Washington Post in which he discussed his concerns about his department.
Thomas Drake was an executive in the NSA (National Security Agency) when he began to disagree with the agency’s policies. After several attempts to address his concerns internally, Drake decided to make his complaints public and turned to reporter Siobhan Gorman in 2006.
The Trial of the Chicago Seven (1969–1970): This trial of anti-Vietnam War protesters was notable for its highly public, contentious hearings, with defendants, prosecutors, and witnesses confronting each other in court. The proceedings were widely covered and became a symbol of open, adversarial justice in the U.S..
Conciliationis is an additional step proposed in the dispute resolution process.
The conciliator meets with the parties separately at a so-called pre-caucus. The purpose is to help each party release their pent up concerns enough to enable them to gain a broader perspective on the dispute.
The parties then meet together at a joint session, where they discuss directly with each other instead of through a mediator.
The conciliator is there to help the parties take responsibility for managing their own conflict, rather than to judge between the merits of the position of one party or the other.
In the U.S. Constitution only one command is stated twice: in the 5th and 14th Amendments: „… or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ….“
This is known as the Due Process Clause, which guarantees that all levels of government in the U.S. must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.
The right of due process is deeply embedded in American thinking, and therefore in the thinking of Americans at the workplace. It is the promise, the guaranty, that a conflict will not be resolved without a process which is fair, transparent, and protects the rights of those involved in the conflict.
It is a question of fairness, of how Americans define what is just. Due Process. It’s what an American employee expects from their next-level management when that manager aims to resolve a conflict within the team.
There are numerous cases brought to court in America each year. Some of these involve suspects who wish to clarify their misdeeds amongst public discourse. This is particularly prevalent in the current case regarding the suspect of the Boston Marathon Bombings.
The suspect in the case pleaded not guilty although his defense lawyer admits “it was him.” This brings about the right to appear in court to argue your side of the story and expect a fair hearing followed by a fair trial.