Business Law, Coursework Example
The essay deals with an analytical look at three cases involving the actions of employers towards their employees and prospective applicants with respect to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, to see if the rights of these employees were in any way violated or not.
In case No.1 the facts were given as follows;
- Employee A has been working for Company X for two years , after which his spouse gave birth to twins pre-maturely and forced him to apply for leave, which he subsequently obtained
- After a period of 11 weeks Employee A request to return to work and to be paid from the salary withheld during the period
- The previous manager was replaced in the department by a new manager
- The new manager agree to Employee A return to the same job at the 4samne rate of pay but denied payment for the period he was off the
The critical question at this juncture was whether the new manager of the department had in any way violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 as it relate to Employee A, when he denied him the payment requested.
According to the United States Department of Labor (2012), two of the purposes of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, were; (a) to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, promote the stability and economic security of families and to promote national interest in preserving family integrity, and (b) to enable employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons which include the birth or adoption of a child, the care of a child , spouse or parent with serious medical condition.
Additionally, according to the US Department of Labor (2012), the FMLA provides certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid job protected leave per year, for reasons such as the birth and care of a new born, the placement of a child in adoption or foster care, the care of immediate family members or to take medical leave due to the inability to work.
In the specific case concerning Employee A and Company X, the latter complied with all the mandates of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, in that the employee’ spouse prematurely gave birth to twins and needed him to aid in her recuperation, and the company gave him the required amount of unpaid leave he was entitled to legally.
However, Employee A erred in requesting payment from the salary with held for 11 weeks, in that he was sent on unpaid leave and was not entitled to any remuneration, as was decided by the new department manager.
In the final analysis then, Company X did not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 in its handling of the case concerning Employee A, but was fully compliant.
The facts surrounding the second case are as follows;
- Employee B have reached the age of 68 years old and has been with the Company Y for 42 years
- At the latest Performance Review the same employee was rated an above average employee but was denied the available promotion.
- The promotion was given to another employee 32 years old who was rated as an adequate worker by the same appraisal system.
The attitude and action of Employer Y leaves Employee B and his lawyers wondering whether there was a violation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, and if there was grounds for a law suit.
According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2008), the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 protects individuals 40 years and older from employment discrimination, base on age. The organization went further to highlight that it was unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his age, with respect to any term, condition or privilege of employment, including hiring firing, layoff, compensation, job assignments and training (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008).
In the case of Employee B and Company Y, the latter had clearly discriminated against the former who had 42 years working experience and a higher Performance Review rating than the 35 year old employee that was given the promotion, and had violated the hiring and compensation aspect of the Age and Discrimination Act of 1967.
Regarding the third case the information concerning Applicant C should be factually considered in the following manner;
- The applicant had paralysis in both legs and the job applied for required movement about the entire company offices which covered 7 floors
- In order for the applicant to access these working areas the elevators would have to lowered by 4 inches
- Applicant was denied the job on the basis of the Human Resource Manager ruling that his/her employment would cause undue hardship to other employees.
In analyzing this case the big question is whether Company Z had violated the Americans for Disabilities Act of 1990, by not employing Applicant C, who otherwise was qualified for the job.
Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires employers with 15 employees and more to provide equal opportunity to qualified individuals, and prohibit discrimination in various aspects of employment, including not asking about their health conditions before making job offers, according to the Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation (2012).
Company Z in particular was in direct violation of the ADA Public Law 101-336 section 102 (a), which state that no covered entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability, because of the disability of such individual when it comes to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, job training .. and other terms and conditions (Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 2012).
It can therefore be concluded with all certainty, that Company Z had more than 15 employees, especially upon examining the number of floors it was operating on, and by not obeying the law and lower the elevator floors to accommodate Applicant C, but chose not to hire him/her, had violated the ADA of 1990.
The Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation (2012). The Americans with Disabilities Act Boston University Retrieved from: http://www.bu.edu/cpr/reasaccom/whatlaws-adaact.html on 07/06/12
The US Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (2008). Facts about Age Discrimination Retrieved from: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html on 07/06/12
United States Department of Labor (2012). The Family and Medical Leave Act 1993 Retrieved from: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/fmla.htm on 07/06/12
Time is precious
don’t waste it!