The ethical behavior of employers is often the subject of debate because, in the interest of making a profit for their business, leaders often forget their moral and social responsibilities to their employees.
The case study under discussion seems to have articulated a similar problem. Employee John, who works for Acme, was disabled after a sudden heart attack. This, in turn, had a significant impact on his productivity, as the man only worked part-time when he returned to work six months later. Acme’s employer did not take John’s new work schedule into account and showed him as one of the weakest employees when calculating KPIs, resulting in John’s termination. It is not difficult to see some inconsistency in this scenario and a clear violation of ethical considerations. However, this essay seeks to evaluate this dismissal in terms of legal validity since the ability to work is protected by the ADA of 1990.
It is paramount to outline the social significance and define the ADA as the law of U.S. jurisdiction. Passed in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a landmark American achievement in advancing the civil rights of socially disadvantaged groups (Introduction to the ADA, 2021). The key message of the document, signed by Bush Senior, is the recognition of the invalid and unlawful discrimination against disabled people on the basis of physical or mental disability.
In this context, it is not difficult to see the connection between the ADA and the Civil Rights Act, signed into law in 1964 (Introduction to the ADA, 2021). This earlier act postulated the invalidity of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, or gender, and thus, in conjunction with the ADA, made a major contribution to the development of a sustainable civil society in the United States. Notably, 28 years after ADA ratification, an expanded version of the ADAAA has emerged (Brown, 2019). Specifically, the ADAAA, through a revision of the interpretation of the term disability, expanded the range of people to whom the tenets of the law apply.
Significantly, the ADA not only views disability in terms of physical limitations, as is often the case but also takes into account the psychological component of this disability. All of the principles of the law are detailed in five sections, each of which covers a specific aspect in detail (Introduction to the ADA, 2021). In particular, the first section generally prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities in any form of professional activity — whether it is the creation of a work environment or participation in compensation programs — and also indicates some of the exceptions. The second and third sections consistently discuss the applicability and illegality of denials for people with disabilities in the public and private sectors, respectively. The fourth section was not directly related to the exercise of professional activities by people with disabilities but focused on the need for additional measures in telecommunications companies to ensure equal opportunities to obtain access information for people with disabilities. Finally, the fifth section of the ADA introduces the technical provisions of the document itself and defines its legal force in relation to other acts, such as the Rehab Act of 1973.
It is easy to see that the ADA defines the situation of people with disabilities in the professional sector very broadly, for which reason it is legitimate to assess the applicability of its principles to John, who was fired from Acme. This discussion is notable for its critical approach in that it takes into account not only the negative aspects of employer-employee interactions but also the positive, non-discriminatory aspects. For example, the employee who has suffered a heart attack is protected by the company and does not lose his job, which is definitely an ethical and legally correct strategy for Acme.
In addition, upon his return, the employer considers John’s physical condition and offers him a new work plan that takes into account the man’s newfound physical or mental limitations. This is also an example of an intelligent decision that was not originally intended to discriminate but ultimately led to it. Moreover, in calculating the KPIs of all employees because of forced downsizing, the employer does not seek to fire John in the first place but uses a tool to objectively evaluate all employees. The measurement of their performance was to be a weighted average, taking into account their work hours. Thus, it is clear that John, who worked 20 hours a week, would show worse results than his full-time colleagues.
It is in the calculation of KPIs that the strictest violation of the ADA’s anti-discrimination policy lies because it is clear that John is being subjected to inadequate methods. As a person with a disability, John is entitled to preferential treatment, which is not a weakness or a manifestation of Acme’s good faith: the state mandates that a private company maintains particular employment practices for John. Hence, when an employer does not create a separate counting methodology for him, they are, in fact, intentionally violating the first and third sections of the ADA in order to get rid of such an employee (Introduction to the ADA, 2021).
In this sense, however, some sensitivity arises that has not been clarified in the text of the assignment. Generally, people do not remain disabled after suffering a heart attack, and the SSA, a mandated agency, usually does not provide specific benefits for such patients (Living, 2017). On the other hand, some studies have highlighted problems where individuals remain disabled after suffering a heart attack (Veronese et al., 2020). Because the text of the assignment did not specify whether John became officially disabled or received a six-month leave of absence from the company to recover, the validity of discriminatory practices against him cannot be accurately determined.
In this scenario, what else is noteworthy is the phrase that “his supervisor opened a locked drawer in his work desk and found prescription drugs.” This statement creates certain sensitivities related to ethics, confidentiality, and respect for personal boundaries. At first glance, it may indeed seem that breaking into John’s work desk is an improper practice, considered along with acts of intrusion such as breaking into a person’s private home or phone.
However, the working practices regarding this situation are unfavorable to John: legally, the work desk, lockers, and their contents belong entirely to the employer; therefore, there should be no restrictions on them exploring them on their own (FindLaw, 2019). It may seem unethical to go into John’s locker without asking, but it certainly is not illegal. On the other hand, the question remains why John uses the office workspace as a place to store personal items, specifically medical appointments.
Ultimately, it is worth pointing out that since John’s disability has not been verified by text, one cannot accurately label the legality of the discriminatory policy in his direction. That said, Acme has repeatedly shown itself to be concerned about John’s well-being. At the same time, the act of intrusion into John’s desk by his employer from no angle can be seen as illegal, although it may seem unethical. Thus, the medical evidence of John’s disability is required to further examine the applicability of the ADA to him.
References
Brown, D. (2019). Understanding the differences and similarities between FMLA and ADAAA. CURI. Web.
FindLaw. (2019). Privacy at work: What are your rights? FindLaw. Web.
Introduction to the ADA (2021). ADA. Web.
Living, D. (2017). Heart attack as a disability: Understanding the facts and myths. DL ATDF. Web.
Veronese, N., Stubbs, B., Jackson, S. E., Koyanagi, A., Noventa, V., Bolzetta, F.,… & Smith, L. (2020). Prospective associations of cardiovascular disease with physical performance and disability. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 132(3), 73-78. Web.