The EEO is an acronym for Equal Employment Opportunity. In a nutshell, EEO is a branch of labor law that governs workplace discrimination. It seeks to protect employees from being discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, sex, national origin, color and disability (Gutman, Koppes, & Vodanov, 2011, p. 1). To this end, there are several laws that fall under the aforementioned category. Some of them are enforced by the established Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on one hand (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016) whereas others though furthering the same course are not specifically enforced by the said commission. One such law that is not enforced by the EEOC is the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016).
The OSH Act protects the employees by stipulating safety standards for workplace environments. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) is charged with the task of investigation and enforcement of OSHA requirements. With regard to EEO, section 11 (c) of the OSH Act is instrumental. It prohibits discrimination against employees by reason of pursuing legal remedies against his or her employer-provided by the Act in question . Therefore, the OSH Act is relevant to EEO law in so far as it provides sanctions against forms of retaliatory discrimination against complaining employees by their employers (Lopez, 2008, p. 31).
There are several cases decided cases based on the said provisions of OSH Act. This paper canvases two cases in which OSHA levied hefty penalties on Case Farms Inc for violations of the Act and one court case in which discrimination was established based on section 11(c) of OSH Act.
In another similar 2015 case, a 17-year-old employee was reportedly cleaning liver giblet chiller machine when his left leg was amputated down from the knee. Unable to return to work by reason of his injuries, he was fired. He then filed a complaint with OSHA. The Administration ruled in favor of the complainant and subsequently imposed a hefty penalty on his employer. The Administration’s reasoning for its decision was based on the fact that the company was liable for exposing the employee to the unsafe operating parts of the said machine due to its failure to install safety measure as required by the OSH Act coupled with the fact that the employer in question failed to report the amputation to the agency within 24 hours as mandated by OSH Act. More so, the gravity of the penalty was inspired by the age of the employee and the severity of the amputation (U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).
Jurisprudence on EEO discrimination under Section 11(C) of the OSH Act is still evolving as most cases do not end up in Court. Instead, they are disposed of by OSHA. However, the case of U.S. Department of Labor v Fayad illustrates how the courts have interpreted the provision of the OSH Act. In a bid to save on disposal costs, Dentist Fayad instructed his Beverly-based office to “first remove protective caps before disposing them to sharps disposal containers” so as to create extra space for more used needles. Fearing for contraction of infections in the disposal process by herself and colleagues, a dental assistant raised the issue with Fayad. However, Fayad dismissed her concern. She then filed a complaint with OSHA. Subsequently, Fayad fired her following OSHA inspection on November 23, 2010. As a result, OSHA instituted a whistle blower investigation against Fayad. Upon completion of investigation in September 2011, OSHA charged Fayad with the offense of violation of anti-retaliatory provisions of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts (U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).
The issue before the court was whether or not Dr. Fayad’s firing of his dental assistant following her complaint to OSHA constituted a breach of anti-retaliatory discrimination provisions by dint of section 11 (c ) of the OSH Act. The Court ruled in favor of the department and awarded the dental assistant compensatory damages amounting to $33 450.26 and back wages amounting to $ 51 644.80 payable by Dr. Fayad’s practice (U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).
The court’s reasoning was informed by the need to protect workers’ rights to safe and healthy working environments and the right thereof to voice concerns when such rights are threatened. Besides, this paper concurs with the court reasoning to the effect that Fayad’s firing of his dental assistant amounted to intimidation tactics employed by employers to silence the whistle blowers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).
References
Gutman, A., Koppes, L. L., & Vodanov, S. J. (2011). EEO Law and Personnel Practices, Third Edition. New York: Psychology Press: Taylor and Francis Group.
Lopez, M. S. (2008). Occupational Safety and Health Law Handbook. Lanham: Government Institutes.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2015, September 23). Case Farms Processing, Inc: Citations. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from U.S. Department of Labor: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/osha/OSHA20151885b.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. (2015, April 8). OSHA Regional News Release. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.osha.gov/newsrelease/reg1-20150408.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Laws Enforced by EEOC. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Workplace Laws Not Enforced by the EEOC. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/other.cfm
