Q1 Answer
Chalfant needs to review the American with Disabilities Act to establish whether he qualifies to file his case under ADA. It is worth noting that the Act requires one to meet various provisions in order to be protected. First, the victim should be able to clearly show that his disability is physical or mental impairment that prevents one from doing certain activities in his or her life course. Besides, it argues that the victim should have a good history suffering from that impairment. Finally, it requires one to be known by others for having such impairment. The qualification of a victim for protection by the ADA provisions should thus meet on of the three provisions listed above. Therefore, Chalfant needs to acknowledge the court of having met one of the three provisions and also should show that the employer discriminated him on basis of his disability (Gold, 2011).
It is true that Chalfant qualifies to be protected by the American Disability Act since he meets one of the three provisions. It is true that Chalfant was disabled since he had an history of arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome as he had claimed a long time ago as he was employed by the company. The move by the employer Titan not to hire him based on the medical examination amounted to discrimination and violation of ADA provisions. Titan had enough knowledge about the history of its employee’s health conditions even before the second hiring came into place. Failing to hire him the second time is a clear indication of discrimination and should thus be punished in the eyes of the law.
However, one may think that the issue of ADA protection of the employee is debatable in this case. The point of argument that may challenge the issue of ADA being applicable in the case its provision that an employer have the right to make a counter provision regarding the hiring of an employee in case issue arises. However, its provision also strongly prohibits an act of an employer to pre-offer medical examinations as it did in the case of Chalfant. The company was required to provide post examination results about the candidate. In such a case, its action would be understandable both by the employee and the court. However, short changing the issue later own is a clear indication of malice and its illegal.
Titan acted unethically and maliciously in handling the case of Chalfant during the second employment. After the employee had filed the case claiming that Titan had violated the ADA provisions, the employer argued that it failed to employ Chalfant because his position was eliminated which was not the case. There was a counter argument regarding the medical test for the employee. The first medical examination of Chalfant showed that he had passed the examination and thus Titan decided to re-employ him in the organization. On the other hand, another argument arose which claimed that the employee had not passed the medical examination thus he was dismissed. In this case, the claim that the company had struck out Chalfant’s position was not true since his dismiss was subject to the medical examination which was manipulated later (Boylan, 2001).
Titan’s final decision not to hire the employee based on the later medical examination results can be taken as a malice by the company to deter the employee from working in the company. One could read malice when the company decided to discontinue its employees and allowed them to reapply for their positions. It is observable that the company did not want the existing employees but wanted to employee a new team in the organization.
Sudden change of facts about the medical examination of the employee clearly indicates that the company did not want to work with the employee. One would want to understand the reason as to why the employee was employed in the first place the company knew about his illness. Secondly, because during that time the company employee Chalfant without any issue one could reasonably want to know why Titan was not ready to employ him again (Miller & Jentz, 1988).
Titan did not bother to give any explanation regarding elimination of any position after it discontinued all its employees and allowed those willing to apply once more. If its claims are correct then this is the right time that the company could have communicated some of the posts which it would scrap from operation. Instead, it allowed Chalfant to apply for the post and exposed him to a medical test. Still, it allowed him to work for the company again until a claim arose that argued that the employee had failed his medical examination. This means that Titan claims in the court of law was a mere lie and was not supported. As a result, it can be argued that the company acted unethically and should thus be punished for its bad actions.
Punitive damages are applicable in this case and need to be applied to Titan. When looking at the case it is clear that the company has violated various employment laws. It has also acted unethically in the handling of its employees and its move to handle matters. In the first case, the company has acted unethically by hiring an employee and later dismissing him on the basis that he failed the medical examination. It is malicious for a company to offer an employee job and later on start claiming that he or she did not meet the required medical qualifications (Holland & Burnett, 2013).
Besides, Tatin violated the employment law by failing to hire Chalfant on the grounds that his post was scraped from the list of the organizational posts. This was not correct because no communication was given regarding elimination of any post. Finally, the company acted unethically by giving lie that it dismissed the employee because his post was eliminated. Following the issues mentioned above, punitive damages should be applicable to Titan to prevent it from repeating the same mistake in the future.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that an employer should not mix issue concerning medical examination of an employee. Besides, it is important to understand the need of an employer to comply with various employment provisions that govern business practice. Furthermore, an employer should always be honest in handling all issues regarding its operations. This is to mean that an employer should comply with the ethical conduct of the organization as one way of enhancing success in its operations. Above all, the employer should avoid any act which is discriminatory in the eyes of the employees and the court. If an employee is able to observe these provisions, then it will be easier to handle any matter that arises in the organization without any struggle.
References
Boylan, M. (2001). Business ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gold, S. D. (2011). Americans with Disabilities Act. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.
Holland, J. A., & Burnett, S. (2013). Employment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (1988). Business law today. St. Paul: West Pub.
