Employees’ Protection
In the last ten years, the question of workplace discrimination was often addressed by the US federal government, especially during 113th Congress. Passed in 2013, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act amendment stated that any gender discrimination at the workplace is strictly prohibited and punished by the law (Chech & Rothwell, 2019). The legislation touches primarily upon the rights of the LGBT community. Addressing Title VII’s statutory of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act protects the rights of LGBT representatives for equal employment (Chech & Rothwell, 2019). Thus, the recently passed legislation aimed at the employee’s rights protection regarding gender.
Another vital type of discrimination that the US federal government addressed in the last ten years is employment pregnancy discrimination. The 116th Congress proposed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to highlight the importance of pregnancy employment protection (Qin, 2021). Thus, this act emphasized that employers, who violate pregnant women’s rights, treating them unequally with other applicants, perform unlawful actions, and should be prosecuted (Qin, 2021).
Therefore, the legislation required employers to treat pregnant women equally to other applicants and hire them under similar working conditions. It is not beneficial for the employer to hire pregnant women because they can experience losses and have to pay maternal expenses. However, the legislation protects pregnant employees’ rights and encourages equal employers’ attitudes towards the workers’ diversity.
Federal legislation sometimes can conflict with the state’s law settings. Constitutionally treating, federal law is supreme over state law. Such a process is called preemption and usually is put in action when employment discrimination cases cannot be solved at the state level. Thus, for example, in 2012, federal law preempted a state law related to undocumented workers’ prosecution canceling in Arizona (Coombs & Newman, 2020). The federal law implied that the state’s authorities should regulate such problems. Therefore, federal law is more important and can eliminate the execution of state law.
Employment-at-will Doctrine
The employment-at-will doctrine is the common law legislation act that regulates the United States employer-employee relationships. This doctrine allows an employer to fire an employee, stating the dismissal’s legal reason (Coombs & Newman, 2020). The court will not consider the appeals if the employees are aware that the employment-at-will doctrine regulates their working relationships unless the root cause is illegal. Since the passage of the Civil Act of 1964, particular limitations were put on the doctrine. Public policy is one of the main exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine (Coombs & Newman, 2020). This exception emphasizes the employers’ legal responsibility and the prosecution if the termination suit is inappropriately held.
The second exception is related to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Some states use this exception, while others do not recognize it as a legal principle. However, it addresses the issue of morally inappropriate employee termination or working rights violations (Coombs & Newman, 2020). An implied contract is also often considered the exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.
It supposes that the agreement between the employee and employer should be signed or at least discussed (Coombs & Newman, 2020). In the written or oral form, such a contract allows the worker to understand the duties, working conditions, and possible termination causes. Another exception touches upon collective bargaining employment. The employment-at-will doctrine should not be applicable the trade unions (Coombs & Newman, 2020). In such types of working relationships, when the employee is a part of the association, the contract where the firing reasons are stated is essential.
Scenarios’ Analysis
Brenda
Brenda’s decision to terminate the worker does not coincide with the legislation protection of the employee’s right and can negatively affect the company’s image. Concerning the exceptions per the employment-at-will doctrine, the fired worker can sue the court addressing the covenant of good faith or implied contract. The appeal results depend on the firing cause outlined by Brenda or her inability to state legally supported reasons. Thus, her choice was not clever because she did not try to find the core problem. She preferred to avoid coping with challenges and just eliminate the aggravating factor. Moreover, the blog was supposed to be the place where workers could express their grievances. Brenda’s actions are wrong from both moral and legislative perspectives.
Jason
The firing of Alice because of the mentioned reason is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that the employee’s religious practices should be respected (textbook). The public policy exception should be addressed. In this situation, if Alice is fired, she can sue the organization due to illegal termination reasons. As far as the regulations for the employees’ religious settings are provided in the Civil Rights Acts, the employer must respect the workers’ individual needs. For example, the Act of 1964 claims that some employees may apply for forming a personal schedule due to the praying time (textbook).
Therefore, Jason’s claim that Alice takes time praying is unreasonable and cannot be considered a decent termination cause. Spreading the right-to-life flyers in the employee breakroom is also not substantial for the firing ground. To solve this problem, Jason can discuss with Alice the contract requirements and set the regulations on spreading the flyers. By doing so, he will respect Alice’s religious beliefs and keep the company’s image.
Brian
Brian shows a lack of legal knowledge by trying to fire Lori and refusing to sign the leave request for jury duty. According to the Civil Rights, he violates their rights of Lori, firing her while she is serving as a jury. She can sue an organization for wrongful termination and illegal firing reasons. Moreover, by trying to fire a worker in such a manner, Brian shows personal dislike, which, depending on the state, also can be treated as a covenant of good faith exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. If this case is held in court, Lori will be in a more advantageous position.
Peter
The current example does not cover the mentioned situation entirely. From the legislation point of view, if the workers with a particular illness do not require additional sources or accommodations, the employer must treat them equally to others. However, according to the example, Peter is being affected by dangerous chemicals, worsening his health state and provoking illness development.
The director may be worried not only about Peter’s performance but also about the negative consequences such work can bring to his health. If the firing reason is chosen according to law and will not violate the disability discrimination restrictions, the boss can terminate Peter without obstacles. However, Peter may sue the organization due to the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The results of this appeal depend on the boss’s arguments supporting the firing decision. It is impossible to clarify whether the boss’ choice is clever or not because of the lack of information. Probably, it would be more morally correct to fire a person who suffers physically because of working in dangerous conditions.
Undocumented Workers Federal Laws
Several federal laws touch upon the topic of undocumented workers and the possible state workers’ compensations. The fair Labor Standards Act establishes employment regulations for all employees, including undocumented ones (Lee, 2018). This law estimates the standard minimum wage and maximum working hours for the person. The second federal law highlighting the employee’s rights is the National Labor Relations Act (Lee, 2018).
It also addresses the undocumented workers equally to the states ones. However, the most essential for this topic federal law is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here, a special section emphasizes that undocumented workers should not be victims of employment discrimination and have the right to get medical compensation and even worker’s insurance (relevant for particular states) (Lee, 2018). Therefore, the US legislation encourages equal treatment of the state and undocumented workers.
Undocumented workers are immigrants from other counties and can be favorable for social and cultural diversity and tolerance development. Thus, according to empirical research, undocumented immigrants and state workers’ cooperation can contribute to the social cost of human labor appreciation (Lee, 2018). Analyzing the difference between the official and undocumented workers, it is reasonable to state that they may perform identical work. However, state workers may be paid higher wages and compensation. Such discrimination is an aggravating social development factor that should be eliminated if possible.
References
Chech, E., & Rothwell, W. (2019). LGBT workplace inequality in the federal workforce: Intersectional processes, organizational contexts, and turnover considerations. Labor Market Inequality, 73(1), 25–60. Web.
Coombs, C., & Newman, R. (2020). Employment-at-will exceptions, social welfare programs and the decline of unions. Department of Economics Working Paper Series, 1, 1–41. Web.
Lee, J. (2018). Redefining the Legality of Undocumented Work. California Law Review, 106(5), 1617–1656. Web.
Qin, A. (2021). Discrimination against pregnant women in the U.S. workplace: An overview & solutions. SSRN, 1, 1–12. Web.