Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Occupational Safety & Healthy Act 1970 - Essay Example

Midterm Exam: Questions Question The common law and the labor relations acts stipulate the conditions, which determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. A person is considered an employee when his acts are regulated by the acts of an employer expressly or impliedly. For instance, an employer-employee relationship can only exist when the following legal conditions are present: the employer sets the working hours, directly supervises the acts of the employee, evaluates job performance, among others (New York Department of Labor, n.d.). Therefore, given that the sales staff of Pharmmedix have the discretion of making their own decisions e.g. determining the number of hours, number of physicians visited etc. rather than implementing the acts of Pharmmedix, makes them independent contractors thereby eliminating employer-employee relationship. Therefore, if the legal provisions stated above holds, there is no employer-employee relationship existing between Pharmmedix and the sales staff because the staff solely performs their duties based on their discretion. Thus, I will advise Pharmmedix to go ahead and pursue the case because the employees have no legal ground to bring a suit against him. Therefore, he has no liability for any damages in terms of benefits to the employees because their relationship is that of employee and independent contractor. Question 2 The EEO Act that was established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits particular forms of workplace discrimination based on age, disability, color, race, sex, etc. Section 503 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act restricts contractors and sub-contractors of the Federal government from discriminating against persons with disability by requiring them to undertake affirmative action for any individual with the disability in all the aspects of employment. In addition, ADA & Section 503 Fact sheet, prohibits discrimination of persons having a wide a range of physical and mental impairments, substantially limiting their activities like seeing, hearing, walking, breathing etc. (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Therefore, based on the aforementioned provisions of the Acts, I will advise Homer Sparkey to take legal action against Very Cool Music for summarily rejecting him because of his age and physical disability. Therefore, I will rule the case against Very Cool Music and demand that they pay damages to Homer Sparkey or they unconditionally absorb them. Question 3 The Occupational Safety & Healthy Act 1970 stipulates that employers must ensure their workplaces are safe for employees to perform their duties. The Act was enacted to prevent workers from being seriously injured or killed at work. Further, the Act requires employers to provide employees with working environments that are free of any form of known danger. In addition, the Act provides workers with the right to receive training and information about the hazard inherent in their workplaces, get copies of results of tests performed at the workplace of inherent dangers, etc. Therefore, it is the obligation of the employers to provide safe working environments that are free from any form of danger (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Therefore, Richard Stockton as an employee of Sheepshead Bay is entitled to a safe working environment as provided by the OSH Act. Thus, Sheepshead Bay Boat Sales owes a duty of care to its employees like Richard Stockton. The legal provisions of the Law of negligence stipulates that for the respondent to be liable, he/she must owe the plaintiff a duty of care, the respondent must have acted negligent, which is evident in the case because Sheepshead Bay failed performing their duty of care by avoiding doing background checks for new hires and as a result, the plaintiff, Richard Stockton suffered a loss emanating from the working environment. Therefore, Sheepshead Bay Boat Sales is liable for unliquidated damages to Richard Stockton because of acting negligent and failing to provide care to its employee. Question 4 The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act 1974 (VEVRAA), affirmative action provisions prohibits any form of job discrimination by requiring the contractors and sub-contractors of the Federal government taking affirmative action by employing and advancing in employment qualified special disabled Veterans, Vietnam Era Veterans, recently separated Veterans & any Veteran who has served actively during a campaign, expedition or war for which an authorization for a badge has been made. Thus, this law provides the legal provisions safeguarding the interests of veterans from any form of discrimination, whether psychological, mental or physical (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Therefore, as per the VEVRAA, Sam Goodwin has no legal ground to institute such a discriminative policy, which is meant to sideline the Veterans based on the notion of a previous bad working experience with Veterans. Thus, under the VEVRAA law it is illegal for Sam Goodwin using the psychological exam to weed out the Veterans. Question 5 The privacy of employees is limited, but it cant be used against them unless there is substantial suspicion that the intended purpose is inappropriate. Therefore, although the email is racially discriminative in nature, the intended purpose was only for amusement of the recipients and not for the entire Wilhem, Dawkins, and White organization. In addition, the email does not violate the EEO Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender, sex, color or race because the recipients are close friends who enjoy the mails for amusement. Further, the issue of negligence on the side of Jared Littleton the accountant does not arise even though he owes a duty of care to his workmates because nobody suffered injury as a result of the mail. Therefore, Mr. White being privy of the team of the recipients and understands the intended purpose of the mail, should avoid taking any action against Jared Littleton because the intended action is not suspicious, malicious or does not infringe on the rights of other workmates to safe environment or violates the EEO Act (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Question 6 The EEO Act, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in discharge of duty, promotion, referral, classification, pay etc. on the basis of color, race, sex, religion, or national origin. Therefore, every employee has the right to making decisions while discharging his/her duty in the work place based on personal assessment of the situation at hand. Thus, employers have no right to coerce their employees to making unreasonable decisions, which the employees consider malicious and only meant to cause harm. Thus, the action of Jeffrey Peterson dismissing Jessica Minero can be termed as a retaliatory action, which resulted to wrongful dismissal of Jessica Minero from employment. Jessica has a recourse in this case if she proves before a court of competent jurisdiction that she acted legally resulting to her dismissal from employment, which caused her adverse consequences. Therefore, Jessica’s remedies include: reinstatement to her supervisory role in the organization and be awarded her lost wages for the lost days she has been out of work or she can demand for compensation/damages for being terminated wrongfully; (six months income) if the position will have been filled by another employee. Question 7 Patel should claim disparate treatment because the employer treated him differently from the other male employees because he belongs to a protected characteristic (Krieger & Fiske, 2006). Patel can prove his case Prima Facie by the remarks of the employer, which are discriminative in nature. By supposing that that his clientele cannot accept Patel, who is male just like the other employees implies that he discriminated him based on race and color as opposed to his assertions that his clientele would not accept him. Therefore, Patel can win this case by proving his Prima Facie evidence, which are discriminative (NOLO.Com, n.d.). Question 8 According to the EEO Act under the Immigration and Nationality Act, employers are required to provide equal employment opportunities for the U.S. nationals, U.S. citizens, and authorized aliens without discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Therefore, it is the obligation of Delicious Supermarkets to provide equal employment opportunities, promotions for growth for all the employees of the company. Therefore, given that the promoted members of the minority are qualified, the affirmative action initiated by Delicious Supermarkets, is in tandem with the legal provisions, which protect the protected characteristic and demand that employers provide EEO to their employees without discrimination. Therefore, Luke Simpson’ s claims of reverse discrimination hold no ground because the affirmative program stipulates that the 50% of the vacant slots for assistant managers be accorded to the qualified minority members. Thus, I will advise him to seek or wait for the majority’s positions to fall vacant for him to seek a promotion because it is discriminative of him to make wild claims of reverse discrimination since the law stipulates, provides and protects the minority interests. Question 9 The EEO Act under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits particular forms of workplace discrimination based on age, disability, color, race, sex, etc. Therefore, I will advise Sun Loo Chan, to take legal action against the management of Rockwell Pharmaceuticals because they are adamant of taking action against the Asian members who are intentionally and maliciously calling him names, & caricatures and subjecting him to Jokes of the Asian origin, which are forms of discrimination. Further, it is the obligation of the employer to provide a conducive environment for the employees to work. Thus, I believe I court restraint can help force the management to take action against the errant staff, hence help ending the discrimination. Question 10 Disparate Impact demands that employers should avoid using a facially neutral practice of employment, which has an unjustifiable adverse effect the groups/members of a protected characteristic (Primus, 2003). Therefore, given that Mystic Coffee Company has employed more members of one minority group (Asians) at the expense of the other minority groups (Hispanic and African American applicants) it is an implication of a concealed facial discrimination, which however, is discriminative in effect of application. Therefore, I believe the Hispanic and African American applicants have a case arising from the effect of Disparate Impact, which they can prove by the 25% excess of the Asian minority group that forms the majority of the slots reserved for the minority groups. References New York Department of Labor. (n.d.). Unemployment insurance; independent contractors: the employer employee relationship. Retrieved from http://labor.ny.gov/ui/dande/ic.shtm NOLO.Com. (n.d.). Disparate Treatment Discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/disparate-treatment-discrimination.html Krieger, L. H., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Behavioral realism in employment discrimination law: Implicit bias and disparate treatment. California Law Review, 997-1062. Primus, R. A. (2003). Equal protection and disparate impact: Round three. Harvard Law Review, 493-587. U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Equal Employment Opportunity: Disability Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/disabilitydisc.htm U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Equal Employment Opportunity: Veterans. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/vetsdisc.htm U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Workplace Safety & Health. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/safety-health/ U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Equal Employment Opportunity: Ethnic/National Origin, Color, Race, Religion & Sex Discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc.htm Read More