The Employment of Kayte Clark - Case Study Example

? Kayte Clark This paper aims to discuss the employment case of Kayte Clark and the retirement discrimination that she faced in her organization. Kayte was working in Danskin Inc. and after working for a considerable time period she was suddenly terminated from her job at the age of 53. Data reveals that she had a reputable position in the organization whereas all the employees used to work hard over her orders and requests. Before her termination the clothing industry was establishing a Union in regard to the employees. Thus the union representatives contacted Kayte to allow them to talk to the employees about the work benefits and support that they are offering. According to the US Employment Law different employee unions are not required to ask for such formal permissions prior to contacting any employee. Therefore Kayte accepted their request and allowed them to meet the employees but the company heads including CEO reacted negatively on her action. They passed a notice to the employees stating that Kayte does not have any right to allow employee unions in the organization. Later she was given a onetime retirement offer excluding all the social security and funding benefits. This was supposed to be accepted then and there but she refused to admit it. Consequently, after two weeks she was terminated. Her sudden termination from the organization represents a clear case of retirement discrimination which will be discussed in detail with reference to Employee Retirement Income Security Act: Title VII, The recommendations of National Labor Relations Board and State Torts. This shall be further linked with the elements she must prove for a prima facie case and the awards and damages that she must receive in return. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): Title VII Title VII of ERISA covers all the rights of employees while safeguarding them from any social or organizational harm. This is one of the most unique laws in USA as it is solely based upon the individuals who are currently working in an organization rather than contractors or unemployed people. Title VII consists of three fundamental tests through which legal associates recognize that whether an employee falls under this category or not. These include: Agency test i.e. the rights and control of employer over the activities of employees, Economic Realities test which defines the economic dependency of employee over the employer and lastly the Hybrid test which is the combination of agency test and economic test. In addition to this, the legal authorities scrutinize the employment claims as per the duration given to review the contract, nature of agreement either related to employment or retirement, the peculiar terms and conditions and the overall education and experience of the employee. This law is highly applicable in cases such as the one of Kayte because she had significant education and experience in the same organization. Moreover, the time given to Kayte in order to review the retirement package was insufficient neither she was given the opportunity to seek counseling from the company heads. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) NLRB is primarily responsible to improve the working conditions for employees while protecting their wage rights. It guarantees the right of forming an employees’ union in an organization while terminating the inefficient unions or employee groups. Moreover, it encourages the employees to join unions even without the consent of their employer so as to seek social and economic protection. Hence Kayte’s decision to allow the employee union in the organization is justified on the basis of NLRB elements. Furthermore the rules and regulations of National Labor Relations Board are applicable to every employee working at the level of local, state or federal government, in agricultural sector or in domestic service. It also extends protection to people who are employed by their family members or those who work as contractors. This represents that Kayte can easily utilize the elements of NLRB in order to substantiate her case while receiving all the benefits and rewards for her services. State Torts Torts are generally defined as the civil wrong or an act which can be challenged in the court under the law. United Stated Torts are fundamentally divided into three categories including negligence, intentional torts and strict liability. Negligence represents the critical circumstances or damages caused to an individual which could have been avoided. In order words they are also explained as the unintentional torts or wrong acts. On the other hand strict liability deals with the cases where defendant’s action has caused intense damage to the property or prestige of plaintiff. In this case the defendant is heavily charged for the injury occurred. Contrary to this intentional torts are based upon different elements. These are: Intent: It reflects that the defendant certainly knew about the harmful consequences of his actions. He purposely tried to cause damage to the plaintiff while having complete knowledge about the laws applied. For instance, Kayte’s employer intentionally rebuked her for allowing the employee union in the organization although he knew about the union rules and regulations of National Labor Relations Board. Apparently he did so in order to cause damage to Kayte and her career in the organization. Transferred intent: According to the legal principles, transferred intent is applicable in cases of assault, battery, false imprisonment etc. especially when someone else other than the intended target is being injured. Act: The subsequent act after making a clear intention to harm an individual has to be a voluntary action. For instance, the planned termination of Kayte reflects that her employer deliberately put her into a situation where he could easily fire her. Result: This element is associated with the substantial damage caused to a plaintiff. For example, as a result of her employer’s action Kayte lost her job along with all other retirement benefits. Causation: It represents the actual cause or the well defined intention of a defendant to cause harm. It will cover the real reasons for which Kayte was terminated. Conclusion After the termination, Kayte Clark can present a prima facie case in court against the loss she had to face due to early retirement. Prima Facie is the most essential part of civil rights case as it protects the real nature of the claim while also safeguarding the case from dismissal. Above discussion clearly explains the laws and elements that Kayte Clark can use in order to substantiate her prima facie case. For instance, she must qualify the economic realities test which will prove that her wrong termination by the employer has actually caused her economic damages. Moreover, she wasn’t given enough time to review the retirement package although she was the highly experienced employee of the organization. According to the analysis of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, title VII she has to be awarded all her retirement benefits with an addition of economic damages se has faced. Kayte can also use the rule of National Labor Relations Board which strictly emphasizes upon the employee rights regarding the establishment of a union or becoming a part of some external employee unions. The fundamental reason for which Kayte was rebuked and then terminated i.e. allowing the union in the organization is actually inauthentic as per NLRB hence she can significantly use it as legal evidence against her employer. The overall case falls under the category of intentional tort and therefore the employer has to be investigated regarding his intents, actions, results and causes. This will also support Kayte in gaining substantial compensations for her early retirement including all the health insurances, social security benefits and other legal rewards. Read More