Final Examination Employment Law - Research Paper Example

In recent times, the business had determined to go “public” and became qualified for selling stocks and debentures on the S & P exchange. However, with this new move, the company gained the attention of the local labor union representatives, who further decided to interact with the employees of the company. In this regard, they seek permission from Ms. Clark for their interaction with the employees, which they are not required to do so as they possess legal authority for performing the same.

Owing to their professional approach, Ms. Clark permits the union representatives to enter the premises of the company for which she had to face criticism and threat of termination from the top level management of the company. This instance was followed by an offer from the management, which depicted a forceful retirement package with the exclusion of several normal retirement benefits. She did not response to the offer of the management, which eventually resulted in her termination. THESIS STATEMENT In context to the aforementioned case, this research paper will identify and explain the law that will be applicable to assist Ms.

Clark to deal with the misconduct of the company made towards her. A few of the law that will be considered in this paper will include EIRSA (Title VII), the NLRB and Tort law of the United States among others. Accordingly, a conclusion will be made about the position of Ms. Clark in the entire scenario. DISCUSSION From the above analysis, it is quite apparent that Ms Clark had certain issues with her disability in Danskin Inc. However, the approach of the company made towards her with regard to promotion and decision of contacting the union representatives can be countered as per the EIRSA (Title VII), the NLRB and state Torts law in order to reach an ultimate conclusion on her rights and stands in the entire scenario.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a federal law of the United States, enacted in the year 1974 with the intention of protecting the rights of pension plan standards of the employees in the workplace. Contextually, title VII of the Act deals with the aspect of employee discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex, race, age and other related factor. However, in the case, Ms Clark was restrained from the post of Senior Vice president in the organization due to the reason that she was legally blind and deemed not fit to face the challenges along with the responsibilities involved in that particular designation.

Contextually, it can be stated that the approach of company could not be countered or questioned in this regard as its conduct was not discriminatory as per title VII of the ERISA. However, as per the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), employers should not discriminate the employees on grounds of their age and deprive them from gaining employment opportunities. Accordingly, the approach of the company in terms of not promoting Ms. Clark also has the association of her age factor as a reason.

Furthermore, in this similar regard, Ms. Clark can also counter the approach made by the company towards her on the basis of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 1990, which states that employers will have the responsibility to treat all the employees on the basis of their competency and not their disability. In this case, Ms. Clark’s promotion was solely restrained on the basis of her legal blindness (Auburn University, “