Family and Medical Leave Act - Essay Example

SITUATION ‘A’ Under Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, all U.S. government employees and employees are en d up to twelve workweeks of unpaid leave for mentioned reasons. This leave is offered to all the “eligible employees”. “Eligible employees” include employees who are working for employers with 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius. Further, they must have worked for the employer at least 12 months and 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months. SEC. 101 of the Act describes an employer as, “Any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” It also includes “Any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer; and any successor in interest of an employer; and any public agency.” Among the various reasons mentioned in the SEC. 102 of the Act, there is one which relates to this case which is, “The birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.” The Act provides various protections to the employee including restoration to the same position upon return to work and if the same position is not available, then he must be employed to an "equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and conditions of employment." In the given scenario, employee A has been with Company X for two years and Company X has more than 75. Hence, Mr. A is protected under the act. Keeping in view the Act, it is derived that the previous department manager was wrong to decide to pay the withheld salary as the Act grants only unpaid leave to employee. However, the employee has to be appointed in his previous position at his previous rate of pay. But as the new manager has denied the request for the 11 weeks of withheld salary, so, no violation has occurred. SITUATION ‘B’ Section. 621 of Act deals with the purpose of this act with the conclusion that, “It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.” The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits age discrimination against any worker aged 40 or more from discrimination on hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. (U.S. State Department of Labour). The act previously had maximum age limit but an amendment during 1987 removed the limit. The age covers private employers with twenty or more workers, state and local governments, and employment agencies. Hence, Mr. B is protected under the act whose age is more than 40 years and working for a company which has more than 20 workers. SEC. 623 (a) mentions the prohibitions of the act for an employer which also states that “it shall be unlawful for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age”. Keeping in mind the above prohibition, when we look at the given scenario, where Mr. B was denied a promotion only due to his old age, his status as an employee was adversely affected and he was limited to his current position despite hardworking. Moreover, he was kept aside, in order words, segregated from the promotion. It is true that denying a promotion is not a violation but in this case, the reason of denying the promotion is the violation. One of the purposes of this act is “to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age”. Mr. B is working “above average” and he is totally productive for the company but the one and only reason of not granting him promotion is clearly mentioned which is his old age. Therefore, I conclude that the situation is in clear violation of the act which strongly opposes discrimination on promotion on basis of old age. Mr. B should immediately be given his due promotion. SITUATION ‘C’ The Americans with Disability Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation. (ada.gov) The Act defines a disability as, “A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.” As per the act, applicant C is a disabled person whose both legs are paralyzed. Title I of the Act is concerned with the rights of disabled employees. In the act, term “discrimination” also means to “deny employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” There are some exceptions that the person must not be engaged in the illegal usage of drugs. Furthermore, the person must not have an infectious and communicable disease. In the given case, neither Mr. C is involved in the illegal usage of drugs nor he has an infectious and communicable disease as his paralysis of both the legs is harmless to other. According to the act, a covered entity should provide “reasonable accommodation” which also includes “making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Therefore, Mr. C is eligible to be provided a wheelchair to move to the office premises and may also be allowed to use the company’s elevator to access any of the seven floors in the headquarters building. They key pad of the elevator may also be lowered for his convenience. The act contains provision of undue hardship where certain factors are mentioned to be considered. Analyzing these factors shows that Mr. C will not impose undue hardship on Company X. The overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation are not high. It does not require any other employee to be hired for moving Mr. C from place to place. Therefore, the cost will incur only on the purchase of an automatic wheelchair and lowering the key pad of the elevator which is not high and the company is capable enough to consume this little amount of money. Thus, the denial of employment to Applicant C was totally in serious violation of the act. It is suggested that applicant C may immediately be hired and provided reasonable accommodation. Works Cited (n.d.). Retrieved from U.S. State Department of Labour: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm (n.d.). Retrieved from ada.gov: http://www.ada.gov/publicat.htm#Anchor-14210 Read More