Labor and Employment Laws - Coursework Example

Labor and Employment Laws Labor and Employment Laws This paper will analyze the dynamics surrounding labor and employment laws and their subsequent applications in the work place. An analytical approach will be taken to review whether certain business activities contravened the regulations of the Labor and employment. This will be achieved through a situational analysis of different cases within the business that border on employment and labor. It is imperative to understand the importance of labor and employment laws in the business setting. Employment and labor laws play an integral role in the regulation of employer-employee relationship. They provide a benchmark for solving disputes and grievances arising from employment. These laws are derived from the common law decrees, federal decrees and a variety of county ordinances. Other than statutory law and other laws of the land, the human being is an individual of rational nature who has dignity inherent in his/her being. Therefore, it is wrong to have any form of discrimination fashioned against him in any circumstance. This principle is among the underlying principles that govern the formulation and implementation of laws that fight against discrimination. The US government has undertaken incessant steps in the development and subsequent implementation of labor laws in order to protect its citizens from various forms of discrimination. Discrimination is an act that entails denying individuals their human rights on grounds of certain bigotry. Discrimination can be manifested in a number of ways. For instance, discrimination can be based on to racial backgrounds, religious orientations, sex, disability, age, pregnancy, and nationality. This paper categorically looks at the laws governing against discrimination based on age, disability, and right to maternity/paternity leave. It is important to look at the individual laws that govern these specific discriminations in order to review the cases presented. Family and Medical Act of 1993 The Family and Medical Leave Act warrant qualified personnel of covered businesses to take voluntary, job-protected sabbatical for stated family and health reasons (Rigler, 1994). Certain fundamental facets of the provision need to be enacted in order to understand the scope of the laws. Covered Business/ Employers The Family and Medical Leave Act are applicable to proprietors who meet specific conditions. The following are the conditions that must be met by an employer in order for the Family and Medical Leave Act to be applicable to them. The private sector proprietor should have more than fifty workers in more than twenty workweeks in the present or previous calendar year, as well as a joint proprietor or beneficiary in interest to a covered employer (Rigler, 1994).; Public agency, comprising a regional, national, or Federal state agency, irrespective of the number of personnel it hires Public or private rudimentary or secondary institutes, irrespective of the number of staff it hires. Qualified Personnel The Family and Leave Act only apply to eligible personnel. The following are deemed qualified. Is employed by a covered business; Has been employed in the business for a minimum period of 12 months; Has a minimum of 1,250 hours of working in the business within the 12 months directly prior to the leave (Rigler, 1994). The above eligible employees can take leave for one of the following reasons enumerated below. The delivery of a child or assignment of a child with the worker for adoption: To take care of a family member who is extremely sick; The employees should give the employers adequate notice prior to commencing the leave usually thirty days. In unexpected circumstances, the employees are required to notify immediately the employer. Consequently, when the employee returns from leave he/she ought to be reinstated to his or her regular duty or to a corresponding duty with corresponding salary, paybacks, as well as added terms of service. In light of these provisions, the situation that entailed withholding the accrued salary of an employee who had taken an 11-week leave to cater for his wife’s unexpected delivery is wrong. The employee had worked for more than two years hence surpassing the 12 months period threshold. Moreover, the reason for leave was within the reasons stipulated by the act. The employee had given an immediate notice due to the unexpected nature of situation. The employee has asked to return to work but the employers are withholding his accrued payment during the leave period. The employee meets all the required conditions for eligibility and due compensation during and after the leave. The employer therefore has no grounds to withhold his salary. Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA) This act seeks to prevent the discrimination of employees in the work place because of their physical appearances (Illingworth & Parmet, 2000). Persons with disabilities repeatedly face several kinds of discernment, comprising complete deliberate segregation, the prejudiced effects of design, and conveyance obstructions. Moreover, they face controlling regulations and strategies, lack of appropriate adjustments to current amenities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria (Re, 1981). This act specifies that a covered body shall not victimize a competent person on grounds of incapacity in respect to employment application processes, the appointment, progression, or release of personnel, worker reimbursement, and further freedoms of employment (Re, 1981). The details of the case reveal that the applicant was a qualified individual. A qualified individual according to the Americans with Disability Act is an individual who, by or without sensible accommodation, may execute the necessary tasks of the occupation status which the person wishes. On the other hand, the potential employee states that admission of the employee would cause undue hardship to the company. This undue hardship expressed by the company is the modification of two key pads in two floors of the four car elevation floors. The floors would have to lower by four inches. Undue hardship in the Americans with Disability Act is defined as any deed needing substantial difficulty or costs to the company’s bid to secure persons with disability admission. In this scenario, if the company’s endeavor to make the necessary modifications in its structures and buildings to secure admission was legitimately costly to the operation of the company, then the applicant had no grounds for launching a complaint. If however, the modifications would not have significant impact on the cost and operation capabilities of the organization the applicant had a legitimate reason to launch a complaint on grounds of discrimination. This unique scenario will ultimately depend on the proof of costly expenditure on the part of the company in case of admission. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 This act was enacted to stop discriminating against persons on grounds of age in the work setting. This act was informed following the backdrop of improving productivity that made elder employees incapable of retaining their jobs (Neumark, 2003). Moreover, disregarding the older people’s efforts in the work setting curtailed their ambitions for career advancement and skill development. The Act stipulates that: It is illegal for an employer to decline hiring, dismiss, or victimize a person with respect to employment and compensation because of the person’s age (Neumark, 2003). It is illegal for the employee to limit the workers in manners that would deny them job prospects or affect undesirably their position as employees (Neumark, 2003). It is unlawful to diminish the pay rate of an employee. The case in question involves an employee who is 68 years old and has worked for the company for 42 years. The employee was established to be performing well after a performance appraisal conducted in the company. However, the employee was denied a promotion because of his age. The promotion was instead given to another 42-year-old employee who had performed averagely after the performance appraisal. This incident was a direct contravention of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This incident specifically ignored the provision that stated; it was illegal for the employee to limit the workers in manners that would deny them job prospects or affect undesirably their position as employees. In this respect, the employer limited the employer’s prospect of advancing his career through promotion to a more prestigious position in the organization. This was an open and direct incidence of discrimination by the employer. The employee had legal grounds to instigate litigations against the company for discrimination based on age. In retrospect, a number of discriminatory incidences are bound to occur in the organization. These are initiated or propelled by the employer deliberately or unintentionally. The government has however enacted a number of acts that are meant to protect the employee from these discrimination tendencies. A number of these acts are the Family and Medical Act, the Americans with Disability Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Family and Medical Leave Act warrant qualified personnel of covered businesses to take voluntary, job-protected sabbatical for stated family and health reasons. This prevents chances of discrimination meted out on employees because of the resolve to seek medical care and attain to family issues. Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA) seeks to prevent the discrimination of employees in the work place because of their physical appearances. Persons with disabilities repeatedly face several kinds of discernment, comprising complete deliberate segregation, the prejudiced effects of design, and conveyance obstructions. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 was enacted to stop discriminating against persons on grounds of age in the work setting. This act was informed following the backdrop of improving productivity that made elder employees incapable of retaining their jobs. References Illingworth, P., & Parmet, W. E. (2000). Positively Disabled. The relationship Between the Definition of Disability and Rights under the America Disability Act. Americans with disabilities: exploring the implications of the law for individual institutions, pp. 3-17. Neumark, D. (2003). Age discrimination legislation in the United States. Contemporary Economic policy, 21(3), pp. 297-317 Re, E. D. (1981). Judicial Independence and Accountability: The Judicial Councils Reform and judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. N. Ky. Rev., 8,221 Rigler, J. (1994). Analysis of Understanding of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Case E. Res. L. Rev. 45,457 Read More