Business Law
Several laws have been developed to take care of the employee by regulating the actions of employers faced with different circumstances. The basic premise is that entrepreneurs will always act in their own interest, a situation which often leads to grave social injustices especially among the marginalized and vulnerable groups. This paper discusses three cases and establishes their compliance with the relevant legislations in the US.
Situation A (Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
The situation falls under the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) signed by former Bill Clinton. The act seeks to enable employees to obtain leave due to medical condition of the self or a close relative and still have hi/ her job back. Under the act, employees are entitled to a 12 week unpaid medical leave within 12 months. The reasons for the leave must be to take care of a child born by the employee; take care of an adopted son or one placed in foster care as well as look after a child, spouse or parent with a serious medical condition. The unpaid leave also applies in a case where the said employee is unable to handle the roles of his position due to health problems. The leave is in addition to the normal paid leave. On return from such leave, the employee has the right to resume to the same position held before taking the leave or its equivalent. On this note, the remuneration, status and any other work related terms and conditions should be as before. However, a notice of at least 30 days has to be given before taking such a leave and more importantly, the employee must be working for a business, which employs at least 50 workers within a radius of 75 miles. The threshold is not applicable to local education as well as public agencies. The employee should also have worked for at least 12 months before being entitled to the leave (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).
In situation A, the employee has worked for more than two years hence, he is entitled to the medical leave. He has also been granted a leave not exceeding twelve weeks as stipulated. Still, his employer has 75 employees, which is above the threshold of 50 set by the act. However, he is not entitled to the withheld salary since the medical leave should be unpaid under the Act. There is no illegality bearing in mind that the worker is to resume previous position on the same pay (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).
Situation B (Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
The situation falls under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The act was enacted to stop discrimination for employees aged 40 years and above at the work place. It also sought to regulate benefits and pensions provided by employers as well as ensure that information pertaining old workers needs is public. The act covers a wide range of issues. It deals with promotions, wages, firing and hiring procedures, job advertisements, benefits to older employees and prohibition of mandatory retirement in some sectors. The act openly allows older people to be favored against the younger ones but not the young against the old. It forbids any form of discrimination in hiring firing promotion, training or any other employment terms against the older employees. However, mandatory retirement is applicable for executives above 65 years (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).
Situation B shows a case where an older employee (68 years) is rated better in work performance than the younger employee (32 years). It is not stated that the older person is an executive hence he is within the Acts provisions even while working at the age of 68. The evaluation rates the older employees work as ‘above average’ while the younger worker’s performance is rated as ‘adequate’ The younger employee however gets the promotion purely based on his younger age. This amounts to discrimination against the older employee and is a violation of the act. Under these circumstances, the older employee should automatically be awarded the promotion. He/ she can seek the nullification of the promotion through a court as well as any back pays, which may be applicable (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).
Situation C. American Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
The situation falls under the American Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This act protects the disabled from discrimination by any party involved in employment. These include the state, private companies, local governments, labor unions as well as employment agencies. It covers issues on hiring and firing procedures, remuneration, training, privileges and other terms and conditions involved in employment with focus on the disabled. The act defines a disabled person as one with a mental or physical impairment that limit involvement in some activities; one with a record of the described impairments and one who is believed to be impaired (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).
A qualified but disabled person is defined under the act as one who can execute the roles and functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. According to the act, reasonable accommodation refers to adapting the already existing facilities at the workplace for use by those with disabilities; restructuring and modifying job plans and relevant reassignments to assist the disabled; making modifications to training methods, company policies, evaluation methods as well as equipments and devices. The bottom line is that the employer should make adjustments at the workplace to accommodate persons with known disabilities so long as the adjustments do not lead to ‘undue hardship’ on the business. This implies that the employer is not obliged to make adjustments for accommodation if undue hardships in the form of significant cost increases, slower production processes or lower quality production result. Examples of what reasonable accommodation should entail include hiring an interpreter while interviewing a deaf person and allowing a diabetic to have several breaks in the day for proper feeding and monitoring of sugar (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009)
In situation C, the disabled job applicant has the necessary qualifications for the position, which requires movement between the floors. What is required is a wheel chair and the lowering of the two elevators’ keypads for the employee to easily access.
The employer argues that the lowering of the elevators’ keypad is results in ‘undue hardship’. This is a violation of the ADA. Lowering the two elevators keypad cannot result to significant increase in the company’s costs. It also cannot lead to lowering of the quality of the firms products since the disabled will be able to execute the duties adequately. The adjustment of keypads fits very well within the definition of reasonable accommodation taking to consideration the examples given above.
Reference List
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009. Web.