1.1.) If George accepts the severance package before his pension vests he will have a viable claim against the company based on the ADEA if his employer ABC Company did not comply with the requirements under ADEA before his release as stated in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). However, if the employer has complied with the requirements set forth by law, George can no longer file a claim with ABC. This was the ruling decided in the case of Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. An employee cannot waive an ADEA claim unless such waiver has satisfied with the requirements of OWBPA.
1.2.) I will advice ABC Company beforehand to make sure that the company has complied with the provisions of ADEA under the OWBPA to avoid lawsuits filed against them by the employees. The offering of severance package must not be intended to discriminate against the protected group on the basis of age.2.) The case should be resolved in favour of Patrick. If he was indeed qualified for the position, he should have been given the position instead of choosing a younger candidate. There was a clear violation of ADEA since it was shown that there was age discrimination in the hiring of employees and that the older applicants were denied of the position by giving preference to the younger employees. The contention of Times Mirador that the decisions were based on due to the resistance of Patrick to the restructuring program is merely an alibi to allow him to pursue the decision of hiring the younger applicant. Hence, the act of Tim constitutes as employment discrimination on the basis of age. The employer bears the burden of proving that hiring and selection of the younger employee was not on the basis of age but on some other “reasonable factor” (Twomey, 2010).
3.1) This is a case of wilful violation of ADEA and the remedies included are either reinstatement of Ben to his former position and payment of full back wages. In the event that reinstatement is no longer feasible and that the employer’s violation is intentional, Ben is entitled to claim for damages. In this given case, Ben who is aged 48 was subjected to harassment and verbal abuse by his supervisor, who was once his subordinate. He was continuously demeaned when he was assigned to the housekeeping department and was not given any employees to help with the housekeeping responsibilities. (1) Decide the case. If you find there is a violation of the ADEA, what remedy is Ben entitled to? Is this a good example of a “wilful” violation of the law? 3.2). The legal claims of Ben must state that he was the former vice-president and assistant to the president, and then later designated to sweep floors and clean the cafeteria that consumed 75 percent of his working time.
The fact that he suffered from respiratory problems due to the nature of his work and the stress he experienced due to harassment by his employer entitles him to moral damages. The wounded feelings, besmirched reputation and moral shock caused his depression because of employment discrimination under ADEA against MPC. Ben has a solid case and has a good chance of winning.4.) The employer should provide reasonable accommodations for a disabled employee or applicant to ensure that they enjoy full access to equal employment opportunity, unless a particular accommodation may cause due hardship to the operations of the employer (Twomey, 2010).5.) The discharge of Den Hartog was does not violate the ADA because the law only covers and employee who has disability or history if impairment. Here, it is the son of Den who bears the disability and not him.
References:
Twomey, R.F. (2010). Going Beyond Compliance to Engagement and Empowerment.
Ohio:McGraw-Hill.
