Final answer:
Quinn is likely entitled to protection under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which prohibits discrimination or retaliation against workers for reporting safety concerns or refusing transfers to hazardous environments.
Step-by-step explanation:
Quinn, an employee of Regional Industries, Inc., who is threatened with a discharge for refusing to transfer to a department with hazardous conditions, may be entitled to protection under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). The Act protects workers from health and safety hazards and provides rights that include reporting work-related injuries or illness without fear of retaliation. Specifically, OSHA states it is a violation for employers to discriminate or retaliate against workers for exercising their rights, such as filing a complaint. Therefore, Quinn may have a right to refuse the transfer to a dangerous workplace without the threat of discharge.
It is important to note that other legislations, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protect against discrimination based on factors such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and, as ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, also sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet, in Quinn's case, the pertinent protections relate to workplace safety under OSHA rather than employment discrimination under Title VII.