1) Should Cartman win wrongful termination suit?
It will depend on the law of the state where he was employed.
Some few states have held that an employee handbook with provisions such as the one stating an employee would be interviewed before termination could be read as forming a contract
, express or implied, of employment. If it was a contract then Authorit-I has breached the contract and wrongfully discharged Cartman. However, in a pure employment at will state the situation would be different because the employer can terminate an employee for any reason and the handbook does not form a contract.
The employer, Authorit-I, will likely respond in any case that the immediate termination was necessary because Cartman was a danger, but this argument shouldn’t be effective because a suspension would have been just as effective from a safety angle without violating its’ own policies.
2) Will Authorit-I be responsible to the owners of Kenny’s bar?
Likely so, assuming that at the time Cartman caused the damage he was working in furtherance of Authorit-I’s business and was “in the course and scope of his employment”. Even though Kenny’s was not a customer, Kyle was, and Kyle requested the meeting be held there. Authorit-I may argue that it is not responsible for the criminal acts of its employees, or that trying to blow a fireball is not in the course and scope, but if the actions appear to be more negligent than criminal and if Cartman regularly met clients at bars and Authorit-I knew and/or condoned such a meeting place then they will probably be held responsible for all or at least a portion of the damage. The key here is the course and scope concept.
What about Kenny’s mom?
Yes, Authorit-I would be liable based on the same reasoning as above. Immediately before the fireball, Cartman was talking to Kenny about business. Assuming it was business Cartman was trying to get for his company in some manner then the above reasoning would apply along with the same possible defenses.
3) Will Kyle win his lawsuit against Authorit-I for his injuries?
This is answered under the assumption that the injuries Kyle is complaining of were only the ones from the punch and nothing from the fireball.
You would have to know more facts to answer this one. Specifically, Cartman told Kyle that he and the company were sorry for what had happened and that the company was buying dinner but the facts do not indicate whether the company was indeed aware of this or whether Cartman was working for the company again at that time, only that he had been terminated.
If Cartman was not working for the company, then they would not be responsible, plus they may not be responsible if he was working for them since punching Kyle would not have been in the course and scope and was a criminal act which is rarely within the course and scope.
Kyle may argue that he was unaware Cartman had been terminated and that Cartman had “apparent authority or apparent agency” but this doesn’t apply in a case like this but is instead meant more for contractual type arguments
4) I would state explicitly that employees are not to consume alcohol during or before meetings, all meetings are to be conducted either at the place of business or a place that doesn’t serve alcohol. Further, any conduct such as horseplay are not in the course and scope of employment and forbidden, and any damages caused by that are solely the employees responsibility.
The question didn’t ask but the facts said that the jewelry store sued Authorit-I as well, but they wouldn’t be responsible for the value of the ring since stealing the ring wasn’t a part of Cartman’s job nor done in the furtherance of their business.