Employment Law Issues - Essay Example

?Employment Law assignment XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX SCENARIO ONE The first issue to consider is whether John Davis condition can be said to be a disability. It is important to note that not everyone with a medical condition is disabling. Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the American Disabilities Act, both define disability when a person has: (1) A physical or mental condition that substantially Limits a major life activity(such as walking ,talking ,seeing hearing or learning) (2) A history of disability(such as cancer that is remission) (3) A physical or mental impairment that is transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if he does not have such an impairment.) The question that arises is if John Davies condition fits to either of the definitions it can be said that his condition fits into the third condition of disability. The next issue that arises is whether John Davies employer had done to protect and accommodate John Davies condition. Discrimination as when employer treats a qualified individual within a disability who is an employee or applicant unfavorably because she is a disability. The question that arises is whether Davies was a qualified individual and whose employer treated unfavorably. This is answered in the affirmative The fact that he has been into a company for over two years can not dispute the fact that he is qualified, and he could work well and tight deadlines. The law requires (The Rehabilitation Act 1973) an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee. In this scenario, making the employee perform his duties with minimal pressure and him to continue enjoying the privileges of employment. It can be said that the fact that John Davies was given poor rally in his recent appraisal as a result of him having backlog of work is discriminatory and gross violation of his human right to fair wage /promotion. John Davies been denied promotion yet he is qualified and the denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical /mental impairments of the employee. The company failed to make a reasonable accommodation to Davies appraisal and was given poor results despite the fact that he was sickly and unable to attend his job on full time basis. John Davies was denied promotion because of the known disability and yet he was qualified An example of such a case is evident in, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) was a case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act. It reversed the decision by the Sixth Court of Appeals to grant a partial summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams that qualified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a disability. The Court held that the "major life activity" definition in evaluating the performance of manual tasks focuses the inquiry on whether Williams was unable to perform a range of tasks central to most people in carrying out the activities of daily living. The issue is not whether Williams was unable to perform her specific job tasks. Therefore, the determination of whether impairment rises to the level of a disability is not limited to activities in the workplace solely, but rather to manual tasks in life in general. When the Supreme Court applied this standard, it found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly determined the presence of a disability because it relied solely on her inability to perform specific manual work tasks which was insufficient in proving the presence of a disability. The Court of Appeals should have taken into account the evidence presented that Williams retained the ability to do personal tasks and household chores, such activities being the nature of tasks most people do in their daily lives, and placed too much emphasis on her job disability. Since the evidence showed that Williams was performing normal daily tasks, it ruled that the Court of Appeals erred when it found Williams to be disabled. In conclusion, therefore the above issues raised will guide the court to reach a fair and just outcome. SCENARIO 2 The key issue to consider is whether Christine Wallis was discriminated by Fellow /co-employer on grounds of sexual orientation The key issue can be broken into: (1) Whether taunting on the (complainer)Christine by both female /male colleagues amounts to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. (2) Whether Christine failure to report on the taunting which began a year ago be termed as discrimination against sexual orientation. (3) Whether taunting with references to her obesity passes the threshold of discrimination against sexual orientation? (4) Then making of the informal complaint really measured up to severity of complaints discrimination against sexual orientation (5) Whether taunting at Christine at the work place The case of Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services is almost similar to the above facts but the issue that arouse is whether the petitioner had been sexually harassed by his co-workers in the work place. Oncales complaints to the supervisory personal produced no remedial action but under this scenario the supervisory talked to the alleged perpetrators and they stopped. The objective severity of taunting should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the complainer’s position considering all the circumstances. It is important to consider the social context in which the taunting occurred and the effects i.e. this was at the work place targeting Christine. The real social; impact of the work place behavior depends on the surrounding circumstances expectations and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of words used/physical acts performed The tribunal should be guided by common sense and appropriate sensibility to social context to enable it to distinguish between simple teasing and harassing any co-worker either of the same sex or different .Then what conduct which a reasonable persona would find it very or severely hostile /abusive The drawing line should be whether the taunting made Christine less productive and failed to meet her target Title V11 the civil Rights Act of 1964 does not only cover “terms and conditions” in a narrow contractual sense envies a congressional inlet to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment. In Meritor Savings, Bank, fsbv Vinson 477.us.5764 1986 When the work place is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that is sufficient severe or pervasive/alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive working environment. It also evidenced in the case of Harris v Forklift Systems Inc 510 06 17, 21(1993). References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § (2006) Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 U.S.C § (2010) ADA Amendments Act. U.S Department of Justice (2011). Revised ADA requirements: Effective date and compliance date. Blackseth, R.K. (2011). How the new ADA affects all of us. Montly Law Journal House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. "The ADA Amendments Act of 2008". O'Brien, Ruth, (2004). Voices from the Edge: Narratives about the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oxford University Press US Targeted Development for Managers with Disabilities Vierling, Lewis E. (January 2004). "Proving disability remains difficult". The Case Manager 15 (1): 25–29. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 1047, 1062; D'Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites (9th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 1031, 1040. Smith v. Hotels.com at Disability Rights Advocates National Federation for the Blind v. Target at Disability Rights Advocates Barden v. Sacramento from Disability Rights Advocates OLMSTEAD V. L. C. from Cornell University Law School - Syllabus for the Supreme Court Decision in 1999 Erb, Robin. “U-M fans rave about new seats for disabled.” Detroit Free Press. 9 September 2008. Wolffe, Jerry. “New wheelchair seats will be full at U-M’s Big House.” The Oakland Press. 14 September 2008. "Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams". Worth, Richard. Workers' Rights. Read More