Law in Civil Engineering Issues - Essay Example

?LAW IN CIVIL ENGINEERING College Introduction The workplace culture has changed over the recent years. More and more women are taking over positions in careers traditionally though to be male dominated. Like in most situations, this transition has not been smooth and there have been cases of resistance to change. This has led to cases of discrimination against women, which takes many forms. In this case, Eileen is continually being passed over for promotion because she is a woman. Her manager Patrick is resistant to the idea of women and men being equals at work and therefore favors promoting the men. In the UK, there are several laws enacted to protect women against this kind of discrimination. Though the laws also protect men from being discriminated against, women are the victims in most cases. Several cases have set precedence of the actions and compensation that victims are entitled to in such cases. The case In the UK, the equality act enacted in 2010 protects employees against any form of sexual discrimination. The equality act is just an extension of the sex discrimination act of 1975. It does not apply only to women but also covers men. The aspects of employment such as recruitment, appraisal and promotion are covered under this law. The terms of an employment contract should provide similar entitlements to both men and women since the nature of their work is homogenous and of the similar value. In drafting its employment contracts, the company should consult its legal experts who will advise it on the implications of each of the contract statements. Eileen could sue the company for gender discrimination, age discrimination, criminal intimidation and unfair dismissal. She is entitled to damages should she win the case or decide to settle. On the first count of gender discrimination, Eileen is likely to be successful if the case goes to court. Her manager’s comments that the company has an unwritten policy for women in their twenties to be promoted are sexist. He says that the reason for this is that they leave to have children. An example would be a case in which a male supervisor at the Deutsche Bank made jokes considered sexist in the office about women. An employee Dr. Swinburne sued the bank for sex discrimination and was awarded compensation of ?40000 (Labour research department, 1988). Another example of such a case was the Crown Prosecution Services vs Maria Bimieh in February 2000. She won a case for sex and racial discrimination case against the firm. Her male supervisor failed to promote her even after her performance reviews showed that she met the requirements for a promotion. She had worked at the firm for 12 years. The company is vulnerable if it does not have any written document on its policy on sex discrimination. If Eileen and other employees bear witness that in her time working for the company, the management did not hold any educational forums to educate its employees on the implications of sex discrimination or have official policies on according each person equal opportunities on promotion and other matters, then the company is liable for the damages. In 2003, a trainee sales representative at a car showroom belonging to beadles group sued for discrimination claiming compensation of ?180000 which she won. The reason for her compensation was that she was forced to quit work by the offensive conduct of a colleague at work. The court ruled that since the company did not make any efforts to deter this behavior from its employees, it was liable for her emotional injuries. The medical evidence presented during the case showed that it would be more than 2 years before she was emotionally fit to work again. Sex discrimination cases do not always go in the directions of the plaintiffs, some have also lost. In Villalba vs Lynch inn 2004, the tribunal found that she had no basis for a sexual discrimination claim in which she was asking for ? 1.7m in settlement. She claimed discrimination for being made to perform the duties of cabin crew as the directors of her firm flew in a company jet. The supervisor’s comments can also put the company in a compromising situation since he claims that it is an unwritten policy not to promote women at this age. Therefore, this means that the company has been treating women this way and therefore several others can beat witness of this treatment in court. The witnesses increase the chances that Eileen will win this case. However, since there are no documents to support the supervisor’s claims, the company can hand over a copy of its policies to the attorney that Eileen will hire and there will be no evidence. The company could argue that those were the personal attitudes of the supervisor and that it is not responsible for what happened (Labour research department, 1996). Another example is the 1999 case by two women against Hull & East ridding company. The two were denied the post of director while a less qualified male colleague was promoted to director. They were awarded a total of ?20000 in damages. Eileen may also bring charges of intimidation and abuse of office against her supervisor. This could be seen as the personal responsibility and liability of the supervisor but the company is also responsible for the actions of its employees. When she complained over being denied promotion despite meeting the requirements in the performance reviews, she was warned that she may be fired during the next redundancy cutting exercise. This is exactly what happened and she was laid off. Again here the company has the option of avoiding liability by arguing that those were the actions of her supervisor and were not sanctioned by the company management. In the case of Allen& Qvery vs Shazia Wahab where the HRM had told her that she would be risking here career if she decided to sue her firm for sex discrimination, the London Central Employment Tribunal ruled in her favor. This was a classic case of victimization which is the same direction that Eileen could go after her supervisor made it clear that she would be a target for redundancy cutting if she complained about not being promoted. Eileen is in favor with the law because she could also sue the company for discriminating against women who are expectant. Since it was tradition for the company not to promote women who were going for maternity leave to have children, if she looks into its history, she is likely to discover several victims of this act. Women have been awarded huge settlements for victimization due to pregnancy in numerous cases (Labour research department, 2012). Devon county council denied a former school teacher her job after she had been on maternity leave. She used to work fulltime and sued the council for indirect sex discrimination. In September of 2000 the tribunal ruled in her favor and she was taken back though on a part-time basis. Another teacher from Liverpool Michelle Rimmer was awarded a ?20000 in 2005 settlement from LEA. She had been declared redundant during her maternity leave. This was after working for her employer for over 6 years. In 2005, trainee nurses whose bursary had been cut by the NHS because they had left on maternity leave were awarded their full bursaries after suing for sex discrimination. This led to a change in government policy that trainee nurses would continue receiving their bursaries even when on maternity leave. Eileen also has a basis for an unfair dismissal claim. According to the comments of her supervisor, she was making herself a target for redundancy cutting if she complained about being passed over for promotion. However, she did complain and got fired. This cannot be taken as the independent action of her supervisor. Companies have to follow clear procedures when hiring or firing employees and this was an executive decision. However, the company management relies on the assessment of supervisors to decide who to lay off and who to keep on. The company could therefore argue misguidance by her supervisor. The employment tribunal has the responsibility of hearing all cases related to treatment of employees at work. Eileen could also bring charges of age discrimination at work against the company. According to her supervisor, the unwritten policy applied to women in their 20s because they were at their most reproductively active period in their lives. This may be interpreted to mean that women who were more settled in life who had already given birth stood better chances of promotion that the young ones. This is against the 2010 equality law. Again, Eileen’s lawyers could dig into the company’s background and find others who can be witnesses about this behavior in court. Company’s remedies (Institute of directors, 1961). The company could take several steps to avoid legal liability for the actions of its employees, in this case the supervisor. It has to prove that it did not sanction the supervisor to fire Eileen because of her age.. The company does not escape his actions by firing him because at the time of committing them he was still an employee. But by firing him, the company can argue that his actions were independent and in contravention of its policies. Another avenue would be to sue to supervisor. His actions reflect negatively on the company’s reputation and count as defamation of character. Under the law, companies is a separate legal entity and therefore, just as individuals have rights, it also has rights. The reputation it acquires for treatment of its employees is part of its goodwill. The actions of the supervisor damage this reputation. People’s willingness to work for the company drops and therefore financial performance drops. The losses made by the company would eliminate any financial motive for the company to discriminate against female employees at this age. The company’s lawyers could also call experts on human behavior to testify on the effects that discrimination at work has on employees and ascertain that the managers could not have sanctioned this policy. Sex discrimination and intimidation of employees causes serious morale issues. Employees no longer feel secure working in such environments and this may be reflected in their performance. The company is therefore likely to suffer losses. If such losses can be demonstrated in court, the company shifts from being the perpetrator of this discrimination to being a victim of the actions of the supervisor. Under the UK law and the 2010 equality act, an employer is not liable for the actions of an employee if the employer can show that reasonable steps were taken to prevent these actions from happening. If it can be shown that the actions of the supervisor were not taken while under employment, then the company is not legally liable for the damages to the complainant. The words “under employment ” mean while performing the duties that he/she was hired to perform. In this case, the supervisor makes it clear that it is an “unwritten rule not to promote women in their twenties”. Therefore, there is no such policy neither does his job description exclusively give him such directions. These are his own personal opinions and therefore the company is not liable for them. However, this argument is shaky since according to Jones vs Tower Boot in 1997, the words “under employment” are taken to mean “while at the work place”. The only way the company can prove that it took “reasonable steps” to avoid these occurrences is by providing a copy of its antidiscrimination policy. It would also be of great help to its case if it can show past punitive actions to employees who engaged in any form of discrimination (Princetown, 1973). The law also empowers employers to engage in positive action. This is in cases where people with what is termed as a “protected characteristic” are treated more favorably than others are. It may happen during the recruitment or promotion processes in an organization. If the company can prove that it chose to promote the others instead of Eileen, then there is no basis for a case or compensation. This would be despite the supervisors comments that there is an unwritten policy not to promote women in their twenties. The lawyers may argue that this was just informal talks between employees of the company. Since she was fired because she was complaining for not being promoted, a lawyer could argue that she was rendered redundant because rather than concentrate on being better at her work, she was more concerned with being promoted. Redundancy sets in when employees think they have done the best they can and they deserve to be treated better by their employers. The company should also be able to prove that the individuals promoted over the period she had worked there deserved the promotion because they had the necessary qualifications. There is also a limitation of the amount of time that can be allowed to pass between the date that the purported act took place and the date of making claims of discrimination. In the UK claims must be made within three months minus one day after the events took place. Therefore the company could look at the date of filing of the claims and move a motion to dismiss the charges if the time has expired. An exception to this requirement is in cases of continuing acts of discriminations. However, this exception does not apply in this case since the promotions are not done every day. Under the victimization claim, Eileen must prove that she was treated unfairly because she had decided to complain for not being promoted. However, this is quite difficult since it was only her who heard the supervisor’s words warning her that she may be dismissed. It is company policy to cut redundancy by laying off unnecessary workers. Therefore, it would be a case of her word against the supervisor’s. There is no evidence to support the claim that she was laid off for her complaints. There was no official communication and this is technically called hear say. Lack of evidence can be a basis for the company’s lawyers to move a motion for dismissal of the case. Conclusion The law is very precise on the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees. However, due to issues such as affirmative action, some people may seek ways to take cover under the provisions of the law and contravene their contracts with workers or employers. Companies have to learn to take reasonable actions to deter their employees from engaging in any activities that could lead to legal problems. Despite all the possible arguments that a company could bring to court proceedings, most rulings uphold that an employer is held accountable for the actions of his/her employees. The employment contracts should be wide enough with clauses covering various issues affecting the employees while at work. It should also include penalties and consequences of breaking any one of these clauses. The necessary mechanism and procedures should be set up within organization to address any issues affecting employees rather than resulting to legal proceedings. Bibliography PRINCETON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON DISCRIMINATION IN LABOR MARKETS, ASHENFELTER, O., & REES, A. (1973). Discrimination in labor markets. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. LABOUR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT. (2012). Law at work. 2012. London, LRD Publications. LABOUR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT PUBLICATIONS. (1996). The law at work. Labour Research Depa INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS. (1961). The law at work. Institute of Directors. LABOUR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT. (1988). The Law at work. London, Labour Research Department. Read More