The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Essay Example

Employment Law Disability is term that is used to describe the situation where an individual has one or more of their faculties being incapacitated, not functioning properly or missing. Disability is caused by a myriad of factors from natural ones to man made factors. Accidents and disease are the leading causes of disability and they are the major contributors to work related problems. Disability has been identified as a major cause of discrimination in the work place, and not only in the United States (US) but all over the world. Denial of employment opportunities on the basis of disability is a major cause for concern which led to the formulation of various legislations to protect employment opportunities for the disabled. This falls under various anti-discrimination laws that were instigated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act set the precedent for the formulation of various laws that protect individuals against discrimination based on disability, gender and a myriad of other factors that are causes of discrimination in the work place. This paper seeks to highlight, through the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion) method of analysis, discrimination in the work place presented by two separate cases. Issue: John worked for XYZ Motor Company for 10 years before he developed a back problem that led to surgery to deal with the problem and relieve his pain. The company allows for a 30 day sick leave, which in John’s case proved to be an inadequate period for him to fully recover. He was forced by circumstances to return to work before fully getting healed to avoid the risk of being fired. His request for additional days off as recommended by his doctor was denied by his supervisor, which contributed to the deterioration of his back problem, work quantity and quality. Barry who is John’s supervisor taunts John and encourages other employees to treatment him badly because of his condition. This ultimately leads to the breakdown of John’s morale and he misses work for three consecutive days, which causes his firing under the company’s attendance policy. John has been fired from his job for three consecutive days of absenteeism at work, an issue that was instigated the treatment he got from the work place due to his condition. This leads to the question of whether John’s treatment at his work place was lawful, and whether there are laws that protect individuals from such circumstances. Rule: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a US government agency that is tasked with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws. The EEOC enforces laws that are meant to protect individuals from discrimination based on gender, disability, sex, national origin, religion, age, race and color(Rothstein & Liebman 78). Disability discrimination in the work place occurs when the employer or other entities as covered by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) treats a qualified candidate who is an employee or job applicant unfavorably because of their disability. The Law requires that an employer provide appropriate and reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant as long as it does not cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer (Rothstein & Liebman 48). The law also forbids discrimination in any aspect of employment that includes firing, hiring, pay, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits and job assignments. The disability discrimination and harassment law makes it illegal for some one to be subjected to severe offensive remarks due to their disability that creates a hostile work environment leading to adverse employment decisions like being fired and demotion (Rothstein & Liebman 58). John’s case presents a case where multiple laws were broken according to the legislations that are enforced by the EEOC and the rights that fall under the ADA. Application: Barry who was John’s supervisor represented the XYZ Motor Company and its policies, which means that the company as a whole should bear the responsibility of the laws that Barry broke.The XYZ Motor Company had a short term disability plan for its employees which the company states that it has the ability to adequately address the concern of its employees with disability. The company’s point of view is that it did everything it could have done in John’s situation and circumstance because it believes that it has appropriate enough policies to tackle such incidences. From John’s perspective, his situation could have been alleviated by the company if his requests for shorter work weeks were granted. John claims that his injury is work related and he has lodged this complain through the state’s workers’ compensation system. This is because John’s job entails standing for a daily eight hour shift for five days a week, which he believes has over the years, contributed to his back injury. Because of this, the company should have created provisions to enable him to work effectively and efficiently despite his condition. A manager’s perspective on John’s case warrants an in-depth reviewof the company’s policy with regard to employment law and its application in the work place.There seems to be no emphasis on ethical practice in XYZ Motor Company’s policy especially in employee relations and treatment. This is because Barry, who is a supervisor, should be aware of the laws that govern employee relations with their employer and among themselves. The law clearly states that appropriate measures should be taken by a company to ensure that there are reasonable accommodations for a person with disabilities in the work place. Barry breaks this law by refusing to assign John to a less strenuous work detail due to disability caused by his back problem. To avoid the matter being pursued by the state’s worker’s compensation system, the management could have assigned John a simpler and less taxing work detail as he had requested. The simpler work detail could even have been at a lesser pay as long as John agreed to the new terms for the sake of his recovery. It was practically improbable, on Barry the supervisor, to expect John to perform at his optimal capabilities with his debilitating back problem. The practical thing to do in this situation was to assign John to a work detail that he could competently handle. XYZ Motor Company should adapt a managerial approach that seeks to make sure that all its managers are aware of the laws that guide employee relations. This will help the company avoid the situation that John’s issue will expose the company to, and the losses it will undergo in paying him for damages granted by a court of law.The company also misused the CBA provision through Barry who took advantage of John’s condition to ‘write him up’ so that he could be eligible for employment disqualification based on the CBA provisions. XYZ Motor Company should strive to ensure that its CBA policy is compliant with Employment Law guidelines and policies. Managers and supervisors tasked with implementing the CBA guideline should be adequately educated and trained on how to apply its provisions to avoid unfair and disadvantageous practices. Conclusion: To strategically manage this situation and others that might arise in the future, the company should institute measures that will address employee education on their rights, privileges and responsibilities. This will ensure that the company is not exposed to the disadvantages that arise from unethical and unlawful employer and employee practices. Issue: Amy, Janice and Rob are employees of Upstate Coal and Coke (UCC) who have undergone discrimination based on their on their gender, sexuality and mannerism. Amy along with other female employees of UCC has for the past 15 years been experiencing gender based discrimination from their employer. Janice who is gay has been both sexually harassed and discriminated against because of her gender and sexual orientation. Rob who is a recent hire at UCC, is discriminated against because of his mannerism which puts him at a disadvantage because he is viewed as a lesser individual compared to other members of his sex. Their experience leads to the question of whether it is lawfully and ethically correct for individuals in the work place to be discriminated against because of their behavior, sexual orientation and gender Rule: Under the EEOC guidelines, it is unlawful to antagonize an employee because of their sex. Harassment entails sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature (Rothstein & Liebman 69). According to Rothstein & Liebman, harassment does not necessarily have to be of a sexual nature, and it can be achieved through offensive remarks concerning a person’s gender. Sexual harassment can come from any quarter of the gender divide which can be from a victim’s supervisor, co-worker or an individual related to their employer. Discrimination against a person because of their sexual orientation is in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which is also known as gender identity discrimination. This gives lesbians and gays the right and protection from discrimination because of their sexual preferences. Application: UCC is liable as an employer for prosecution on the premise of violating EEOC laws that entitle individuals the right of equal employment terms and conditions irrespective of their gender and sexuality. In response to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling and decision in Faragher and Ellerth, instituted a formal sexual harassment policy. From a manager’s perspective, this policy was not implemented effectively especially on the part of plant-wide harassment committee. This is because the committees’ membership included a recently promoted human resource representative Harry, who was bound to be bipartisan. UCC management should have ensured that the committee’s’ membership is constituted of individual’s who have nonpartisan interests and attitudes about sexual harassment. It is unethical for the company to institute measures that will prevent harassment and discrimination of female workers in the work place. The company can put in place tough penalties for those found compromising the welfare of other employees based on their gender. The conduct of UCC’s management with regard to the harassment complaints filed by various employees makes the company liable because it was negligent in remedying the offensive conduct (Rothstein & Liebman 43). According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is strictly liable to for its supervisor’s workplace harassment and discrimination that is directed towards its employees. This makes Jon’s actions towards Amy unlawful and it exposes the company to prosecution by the EEOC, the agency to which she reported her sexual harassment claims. UCC’s policy that denies new employees the opportunity to launch any formal complains about their work place experiences is used by the company to diminish or negate these employees’ rights. The six month probationary period in which new employees have to go through, which company uses to gauge an employees’ ability and suitability, is used as a loophole by co-workers and senior management to take advantage of new employees. To strategically equip and protect the company from harmful legal suits, the management should change its probationary policy and exclude the complaints section. The section prohibiting new hires from making complaints exposes the company to unlawful practice by its employees. Discrimination against employees because of their sexual orientation is unlawful under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. Janice’s and Rob’s treatment by their supervisors and co-workers qualifies as a violation of the law passed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and predisposes the company to prosecution. UCC’s implementation of the sexual harassment protocol is meant to address these issues but it is ineffectively executed. UCC’s management should strive to ensure that its sexual harassment protocol is compliant with the EEOC guidelines. Ron’s complain is not addressed because according to his supervisor the treatment he is receiving from his co-workers is not unlawful. The management in UCC should ensure that its employees are informed and trained on what is termed as acceptable behavior with regard to the law. Training and education would strategically improve the company’s relationship with its employees, which would see a higher turnover in worker productivity. Conclusion: UCC should embark on a policy formulation campaign that is focused on complying with the provisions of the EEOC guidelines. This is because as exemplified by Amy’s case, employees are capable of discerning violations of their rights and take appropriate action which is detrimental to the company. Sexual harassment in the work place is a significant antagonist to employee productivity and should be stamped out at all costs. Work Cited Rothstein, M. A. & Liebman, L. Employment Law Cases and Materials, 7th and Concise 7th, 2012 Supplement. 7Th Revised Edition. New York: West Group. 2012. Print. Read More