Employee Relations in Human Resources Management - Case Study Example

FACT PATTERN ONE Fast of all, it is valentine. During valentine, every employee will behave differently. Nevertheless, they should carry out their duties as expected; therefore, meeting the employee at H.R. department is okay. After the meeting, you discover a possible allegation from employee relations specialist; he alleges that everybody does falsify information only that it is discovered when reviewing the request for FMLA leave. Falsification of information at any time is illegal (Islam 40). As head of human resource department, you should start investigation to substantiate the authenticity of the allegations (Gennard 120). If you discover that any of the employees has falsified any information, then it will be possible to terminate his employment and the company will incur no loss in terms of him claiming compensation. The C.E.O. has a surprise for you, but it turns out that you do not like it. You decide to leave the room and your subordinate boo you. Being booed by your subordinate creates a hostile work environment. The nature of the surprise- an explicit dance on the pole – is wrong. The C.E.O. later follows you and instead of apologizing he makes the situation worse, first, he thinks you are unreasonable. He also says that if you were more social with him, you two could go amazing places. In other words, the C.E.O. discriminates you for not being social with him. He goes ahead and massages you at the back. You are aggrieved by this even more and decide to complain to the C.EO. He does not listen to you and decide to fire you. The controlling law WLAD (Washington law against discrimination) will apply because the company is based in Washington. The law provides that managers and supervisors are personally liable for committing discriminating act. The C.E.O. is your boss and therefore personally liable to for discriminating you. The WLAD will apply because of possible discrimination based on gender and sexual harassment. The CEO will be personally liable because the surprise aggrieved you and resulted to boo from the subordinates. The human resource employee in Washington may file a charge with Washington human right commission in this case. The commission will commence a lawsuit on behalf of the aggrieved employee. The employee may utilize the prosecution and investigational powers to file a discrimination charge. The lawsuit may seek compensatory damages injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. An employee can also file discrimination complaint with the equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC). EEOC is a federal agency charged with enforcing chapter VII. The agency can commence the investigation on behalf of the aggrieved party. The charge must be filed within 300 day of the last discriminatory event. The lawsuit may claim compensatory damage, injunctive relief, and attorney’s cost. The claim from human resource employee are sexual harassment, the employee could allege that the CEO subjected him to sexual harassment under WLAD and title VII. The element of this claim are (1) the CEO conduct was unwelcome (2) the CEO sort sexual gratification in exchange for numerous amazing trips and rise in the corporate ladder (3) the conduct was gender based (4) and that refusal to accept the sexual harassment led to the threat to termination of employment. He could also name the CEO as an individual defendant under WLAD. The complainant in this case could meet all this demand if you proof them Cleary. The conduct was unwelcome because he threatened to call the cops if he did not stop also he was fired with immediate effect and had already suffered financial loss. Because the CEO is his boss, then she is sticky liable under WLAD. CEO claim- she is not violating the federal law. She claims that she was not sexually harassing the HR professional. The elements of the claim are as above (in HR professional sexual claim). This claim would fail because the CEO defense is weak in all four elements. Assuming the employee do not raise complain, and the head of HR intervene and stop this behavior, in this case the CEO can intervene, establish the affirmative defense, and avoid liability. FACT PATTERN TWO In this is a case, the controlling law are Seattle municipal code. This applies to a company that employ at least one employee (Islam 43) The company employs more than one employee and is based in Seattle. The situation may involve discrimination based on gender and person with disabilities. The court may look to the Washington law against discrimination when interpreting Seattle municipal code. Hammel who is Freedlove supervisor could be found personally liable if the court finds he subjected Freedlove to discrimination. In this case, the human resource manager should intervene to the situation, which includes discussing with both parties. Both Freedlove and Hammel may utilize the investigative power of the commission to bring discrimination charge alleging violation of WLAD. Freedlove can file a discrimination complaint to equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC). The EEOC has powers and may commence a lawsuit in favor of the agrieved. The lawsuit may seek compensatory damages and attorney’s fee (Dale 17). Freedlove claim- he was discriminated based on disability under the American with disability act. The element of the claim being that he was fired despite the effort to proof his condition. Here freedlove would be able to proof his condition given that HR manager is aware of it and a letter from doctor Mercantile. Freedlove could also name Hammel as individual defendant under the WLAD. Hammel in his defense must show that most of Freedlove time is spent on face book and you tube videos instead of actual work. Freedlove claim- he is not abusing drug but disabled. He could try to claim that Hammel is subjecting him to unfair treatment under disability act. The general elements of this claim are (1) that Freedlove belong to a protected class of people (disabled) (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action (3) there is a link between these two elements. Here Freedlove would be able to meet these two elements since his employment was terminated and has therefore suffered financial harm. If freedlove proofs that, his in protect class of people (suffer from a terminal condition) then his request for restructuring of his job to allow for intermittent breaks and additional paid time off may be granted. Freedlove claim- leave to pick the adopted baby is provided Washington state family leave act. Hammel claims – freed love is abusing drugs. The element of the claim could be the fact that Freedlove was observed purchasing Doritos and his abnormal laughing behavior later plus the abnormal symptom (bloodshot eyes). The claim could fail since Freedlove later disclosed to him that that he was being treated for glaucoma. Hammell complain that freedlove does not take his work seriously and spend more time on facebook than on work is not harassment. According to Dale, when a manager insist about work performance, criticize poor work performance, or enforce policies and rules (so long as he do so equally and that are consistence with company rules) is not employee’s harassment (Dale 15). Work Cited Dale, Karen. The Employee as 'Dish of the Day': The Ethics of the Consuming/Consumed Self in Human Resource Management. Journal of Business Ethics. (2012): 111.1, p13-24. 12p. Gennard, John. Employee Relations 4/E. New York, NY: CIPD Publishing, 2005 Islam, Gazi. Recognition, Reification, and Practices of Forgetting: Ethical Implications of Human Resource Management. Journal of Business Ethics. (2012): 111.1, p37-48. 12p. Read More