Lawsuit against Henrys Turkey Service - Essay Example

? Lawsuit against Henry’s Turkey Service (XXX) (XXX) (XXX) 22nd October Introduction This present essay is about a lawsuit against a United States’ employer. The essay will first commence with a summarization of actions by the accused employer, which lead to filling of the lawsuit at the U.S District Court for Southern District of Iowa. Afterwards the essay will highlight on various aspects of the lawsuit whilst answering the essay questions. It is of essence to note that the lawsuit presented in this essay, is a lawsuit that the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed on behalf of former intellectually disabled workers of Hill Country Farms Inc., whose business-trading name is Henry’s Turkey Service. Summary of the actions that lead to the lawsuit against Henry’s Turkey Service The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) acting on behalf of thirty-two intellectually disabled former workers of Henry’s Turkey Services filed a lawsuit against their employer because of payment/ wages discrimination. The EEOC in their lawsuit accused Henry’s Turkey Service of deliberately paying the intellectually disabled workers less wages as compared to their able-bodied counter-parts who did the same job as the intellectually disabled workers. In specific, the EEOC accused Henry’s Turkey Service of paying each of the thirty-two intellectually disabled workers a total wage of $65 per month during the contract period, which was between 2007 and 2009 instead of the average $11 to $12 per hour, which their non-disabled counterparts got. The EEOC alleged that because of this wage discrimination at Henry’s Turkey Services, each of the thirty-two intellectually disabled workers accrued lost income in the range of $28,000 to $45,000 during the two-year contract (EEOC). Despite paying, the thirty-two intellectually disabled workers undeserving wage per month, the EEOC also accused Henry’s Turkey Service of verbally abusing them, physically mistreating them despite their condition, imposing crude punishments on them, and unlawfully restricting their freedom thereby interfering with the first amendment rights, according to O'Keeffe (1993). In addition, the employer also failed to provide them with appropriate health care as recommended by the labor laws and lastly, imposing on them inhuman terms and conditions in their employment contract such as forcefully housing them collectively in a substandard house. However, it is beneficial to note that the above-mentioned charges against Henry’s Turkey Service are set for trial hearing starting from March 2013. According to the studies conducted by Pimentel et al. (1992) and O'Keeffe (1993), Henry’s Turkey Service openly practiced pay discrimination, which violated the Americans with Disabilities Act that advocate for equal treatment as well as equal pay to disabled people within the American Society. The pay discrimination by Henry’s Turkey Service also violated the labor laws, which advocate for equal opportunity as well as treatment at the workplace and the international human rights law that advocate against discrimination of any member of the society based on race, gender, religion, cultural background or intellectual capacity (Cohen, 2005). Risk management by Henry’s Turkey Service There are a number of measures, which Henry’s Turkey Services could have implemented to prevent the likelihood of such a lawsuit from arising, and costing the company $1.3 million arising from the court’s verdict, which was in favor of the thirty-two intellectually disabled workers. One of the risk management strategies that the company could have implemented was awarding the thirty-two intellectually disabled workers same wage rate as their non-disabled counterparts who also worked at the evisceration line at the company’s premises. The equal payment is justified because a supervisor from West Liberty Foods acting as a witness for the EEOC stated that the intellectually disabled workers performed in equal measures to their non-disabled counterparts. Secondly, equal payment was justified because West Liberty Foods, which had contracted Henry’s Turkey Service, was paying $11,000 for labor services offered by Henry’s Turkey Service as part of the contract signed between the two companies; therefore, the company was in a position to offer equal payment to all of its’ workers. Another risk management strategy that the company could have implemented was offering optional housing that was appropriate and well designed to cater for the intellectually disabled workers. In this regard, they could have been justified in not paying a housing allowance to the disabled workers. Summarily, the most appropriate risk management strategy that the company could have adapted was people-centered human resource management, whereby the plight of the disabled workers is more valued than the minimization of wage expenses. Moreover, through the people-centered human resource management, the company’s workers would have felt equally valued and appreciated by their employer and there could not have been cases of verbal abuse, physical mistreatment, crude punishment, and restriction of workers freedom. Conclusively, appropriate or people centered human resource practices could have prevented all the events that lead to the lawsuit (Osfield, 1993). Ethical considerations reflected in the laws applicable to the lawsuit The EEOC presented the lawsuit against Henry’s Turkey Service to the U.S District court for the Southern District of Iowa on the basis that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act stipulates that it is an act of ethics to treat a disabled person fairly without any form of discrimination towards the disabled person mainly because of his or her inabilities (O'Keeffe, 1993). Other laws have also protected the ethics covered by the American with Disabilities Act and one among them is the international human rights laws that stipulate that it is ethical to treat all human beings fairly and equally without discriminating anyone because of his or her race, gender, religion, intellectual abilities, and cultural background (John and Bellinger, 2009). In addition, the U.S labor laws also stipulate that it is ethical for equality and fair treatment to prevail in the workplace. Secondly, the law also states that it is an ethical practice to provide workers with appropriate health care cover. In a situation, whereby the employer offers housing to the workers then the houses should meet the minimum requirements (Lorence, 2008). Lastly, the first amendment right also applies to this case and it stipulate that it is an ethical practice for every American to protect and respect the right of freedom of every member of the society as the constitution guarantees it. Relevant sources of law and their applicability The American with Disabilities Act is the most relevant source of law in the case against Henry’s Turkey Services and the knowledge of this law by the company’s management will enable it to apply equal pay and treatment to all of its’ workers regardless of their disabilities. Secondly, the International Human Rights laws are also relevant sources of law of which the knowledge of the laws by the management of Henry’s Turkey Service will enable it to ensure that no form of discrimination prevails within their organization. Thirdly, the U.S labor laws are also relevant sources of law of which the knowledge of the laws will enable the management of the company to ensure not form of exploitation exist in the company and that all their human resource management practices are in line with the U.S labor laws. Henry’s Turkey Service’s management alternate resolution to the case After receiving the lawsuit from the EEOC, the management of Henry’s Turkey Service could have reached, out to their former workers, amicably agree on the amount of lost income of the 2-year period, and then decide to pay the disgruntled workers these agreed amounts. This alternate resolution could have saved the company more money than what the court awarded to the former workers, and the company could not have incurred extra cost on legal fees for their lawyers and they could have at least maintained their public image. References Cohen, W. (2005) Implementing the U.N. Torture Convention in U.S. extradition cases: Denver Journal of International Law and Policy. Denver: University of Denver Press John, B. and Bellinger, B. (2009). Enforcing human rights in U.S. courts and abroad: the Alien Tort Statute and other approaches. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Law School Lorence, J. (2008). Men, Mobs, and Law: Anti-Lynching and Labor Defense in U.S. Radical History. Journal of Southern History. London: Duke University Press O'Keeffe, J. (1993). Disability, discrimination & the Americans with Disabilities Act. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol 45(2), 1993, 3-9 Osfield, K. (1993). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Self-Evaluation for the University of Florida. Americans with Disabilities Act 1990; Florida: University of Florida Press Pimentel, R. Alvarez, F. Lotito, M. and Jackson, L. (1992). Americans with Disabilities Act: Making the Ada Work for You. Granada Hills, CA: Milt Wright & Associates Publisher U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2012). Intellectually Disabled Workers Awarded $1.3 million Pay Discrimination by Henry’s Turkey Service. Retrieved from; http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-12a.cfm Read More