Essay
Business Law
Report on Application of Federal Acts to Various Situations
“All persons who have worked for an employer for 12 months and at least 1,250 hours during the year may take up to 12 weeks off to care for a newborn or adopted child, or oneself or immediate family member with a serious health condition. Employees are then entitled to return to their old position or an equivalent one; whether the leave pays or unpaid is not mandated” (Higginbotham).
Now what this means pertinent to the scenario at hand are a number of key factors. First and foremost is the question of whether or not the employee has been working for the company for 12 months and has completed the mandated 1,250 hours of work. A company having over 75 employees clearly qualifies as a company large enough to mandate leave for family or medical emergencies.
The employee upon his return has been given him old position back immediately and without delay. The third factor to consider is that the birthing of employee A’s children was premature. It would suggest that he had informed his superiors that he would be taking a leave of absence to care for his newborn. However the premature birth meant that he took this leave before his scheduled time, which resulted in a scheduling crisis and thus additional burden on the company.
It raises the question as to what existing policies the company has in regards to the families and medical act. It also warrants the question of whether or not the matter of employee A’s leave being paid or unpaid is discuss at the time when he took his leave. If it were the case, the previous manager failed to mention so and neither has any such claim come forth from the employee (Rigler). The Families and Medical Leave Act was incorporated for the protection and bringing about equilibrium between time for family and work in families. It was put into place to afford the average middle-class blue collar worker job security and financial stability in the case of a loved one being incapacitated and in urgent need of care (Ruhm). In the true spirit of the law, employee A should be given salary for the 11 weeks that he was on leave because of the financial burden of employee A and the insecurity that comes along with it.
B) The Age Discrimination Act of 1963 states that
“To promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment and to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on ,”(Agatstein). The ADA is In place to safeguard the rights of personnel above the age of forty. Defending them against being fired or superseded on the basis of age; this said government employees cannot claim damages in accordance with the ADA as per Supreme Court rulings on the matter. The age discrimination act however has certain exemptions such as the “Bona Fide occupational qualifications”. Clause that stipulates that a younger employee may be able to supersede a more senior one if age is an important factor in the work required. The law also allows for mandatory retirement in the case of non-executive workers beyond the age of 65 (Gold). Employee B is currently 68 and beyond that age. Lastly the U.S Supreme Court in its ruling in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab (554 U.S 84) stipulated that the burden of proof lies with the employer rather than the employee. The meaning is that it is the employer's job to prove and justify his decision.
The facts are clear and as follows; employee B has a longer history with the company as well as a better annual performance report in comparison to his co-worker. Co-workers only apparent advantage over employee B seems to age. Unless the firm has a solid and justifiable reason as to why employee B is not promote due to the overwhelmingly clear policies laid down by ADEA in such matters. It is my judgment that a clear violation has taken place and the company is liable to pay damages as well as promote employee B were he to sue. Therefore, it would be best if employee B be promoted over his co-worker (Kaminshine).
C) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. The ADA expects employers to be impartial and fair to all applicants and must provide a valid reason for turning down or not accommodating a potential employee due to any disability he or she may have (Fitzpatrick).
A quick history of the ADA law reveals the Capitol Crawl incident where numerous people with disabilities shed their crutches and began to crawl up the stairs of Capitol Hill. Forcing the passing of the ADA bill is a reminder of how important civil rights are and what a touching subject the matter of ADA cases is (Weicker). Americans with disabilities are already an economically disadvantaged group and as such are looked out for by governing bodies as well as courts who favor companies for accommodating such personnel (DeLeire).
This history and the current trend of providing shielding and protection for the disabled means the company can be held liable for its actions. As a matter of fact, that only two of the four elevators would need to have their buttons shifted a few inches lower is not enough financial or managerial hardship. By no means, it is favourable for the company to reject the application of C. If such action taken by the company once again leaves it unshielded from lawsuits as this is a clear violation of the ADA.
Bibliography:
Agatstein, D. J. (1973). Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967: A Critique, The. NYLF, 19, 309.
Baum, I. I., & Charles, L. (2003). The effect of state maternity leave legislation and the 1993
DeLeire, T. (2000). The wage and employment effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, 693-715.
Family and Medical Leave Act on employment and wages. Labour Economics, 10(5), 573-596.
Fitzpatrick, R. B. (2013). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 11(1), 2.
Gold, M. E. (2004). Disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L., 25, 1.
Higginbotham, J. (1993). FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62(12), 15-21.
Kaminshine, S. J. (1990). Cost of Older Workers, Disparate Impact, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, The. Fla. L. Rev., 42, 229.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84 (2008) (Docket No. 06-1505)
Rigler, J. (1994). Analysis of Understanding of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 45, 457.
Ruhm, C. J. (1997). Policy watch: the family and medical leave act. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 175-186.
Weicker Jr, L. P. (1991). Historical Background of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Temp. LR, 64, 387.
