Jane DOE Essay Example
At Company X, the director of human resources has a duty to the company and its employees of facilitating proper hiring and employment practices, which includes strict compliance with federal regulations against employee discrimination. Enforcing proper federal law of rules against discrimination is to be added during the hiring process, as well as treatment of current employees. Working alongside department managers is integral in safeguarding the company against misconduct with the regulations.
The senior vice president of operations has been made aware of a few situations in Company X that require attention. The director of human resource must analyze and provide a report on each case. In this report, he or she must state whether certain federal acts apply in the situation or whether or not there have been any violations of the laws.
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Employee ‘A’ is returning from an eleven week leave that he took upon the premature birth of his twins. Upon the unexpected arrival of his newborn babies, he requested leave to support his wife as well as be with his babies. Prior to his leave, he had been with the company for two years and was told by the manager that he will be able to return to the same position when he returns. He was also under the impression that there was compensation for those eleven weeks. During this time of leave, the manager in charge of his department who agreed to the terms is no longer with Company X. The new manager in charge agreed on his return to the same job position with the same salary,but unwilling to compensate for the withheld pay during the eleven weeks of leave.
This dilemma is slightly tricky requiring an examination of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to clarify the direction that Company X needs to take in moving forward with this employee. It is important that the company follow legal guidelines of what is acceptable and required by the company during this type of leave.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows for twelve weeks of leave during the birth of a child. Further investigating the regulation informs Company X that reimbursement of the withheld salary of the eleven weeks of leave is not mandatory. According to "National Conference Of State Legislatures" (2013), “Only three states, California, New Jersey and Rhode Island, offer paid family and medical leave. All three states fund their programs through employee-paid payroll taxes and are administered through their respective disability programs” (Family Paid Leave). Unless Company X is in one of the three states with this policy, no violation is made in denying the withheld pay. It is with this understanding that Company X will oblige by the current manager's decision to allow Employee A to return to the position, but no salary will be paid for the period of the leave.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
In the next case, Employee ‘B’ has worked for Company X for 42 years. At 68 years old the employee has shown loyalty, dedication, and excellence in his work the company. Last month while conducting an annual performance review, the results were showing an “above average” level of work done by him in the department. Instead of him receiving a raise and acknowledgement of his dedication to Company X through a promotion, he was over-looked due to his age. A much younger 32-year-old employee with less qualification and only ‘adequate’ work performance was given the promotion. Concurring to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, a violation has occurred in discriminating this employee for his age. SEC. management has ignored 623 (Section 4) of this regulation in particular in Employee ‘B's' department. According "U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission" (1967), “It shall be unlawful for an employer- (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age; (2) 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; or (3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter (Prohibition of Age Discrimination). In abiding by the laws and regulations of the United States, the company must reverse the issue to avoid penalties for harm done to Employee ‘B’ because of age discrimination.
American with Disabilities Act of 1990
Company X recently denied employment to a disabled individual. Applicant ‘C' is a wheelchair bound individual with paralysis of both legs. The applicant would need access to all areas of the company building to fulfill his or her job duties, which are located throughout a seven story building. The problem is only two out of the four elevators have keypads reachable from a wheelchair.
This issue regarding the denial of employment for Applicant ‘C’ needs further investigation to understand if the request to adjust elevator buttons was justifiable enough to reject the individual for employment with the company. Several factors must be weighed out here for Company X. Is there financial hardship for the enterprise in adjustment of these elevators; is full compliance with regulations regarding disabled individuals incorporated in company procedure; does the applicant have a case in discrimination against his or her rights based on disability.
The finance department in conjunction with the human resource department must work jointly to look at the cost of modification of the keypads in two elevators in the company building to comprehend the reality of the situation. One option to consider exploring is contacting the Job Accommodation Network to review the case and see if any assistance could be provided to Company X through tax credits ("United States Department of Labor", n.d.).
The circumstance with Applicant ‘C’ is one that encourages the company to consider utilization of resources not initially investigated regarding the pros and cons of hiring disabled individuals. Surveying the company’s current employees with disabilities may be a proposal to help configure a plan suitable in accordance with regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Composing a plan for equal opportunity for disabled individuals is a legal necessity. The moral and ethical image of Company X is a factor when deciding what action to take. Reviewing the company’s mission statement and values may help guide executives in their stance on how Company X responds to disabled individuals. There is a social responsibility on the part of the company to be inclusive to all persons regardless of physical limitations.
If Applicant ‘C’ had numerous qualifications for the position, but was refused based on the company's unwillingness to make adjustments to the elevators, the cost of losing a quality employee could be detrimental. Renovating the two elevator is beneficial for future prospective applicants who are wheelchair bound; or even current employee who could face such a hardship while employed with Company X.
The final analysis for this case would require the human resource department to examine the regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with a “fine tooth comb." Complete clarity of the laws prior to final refusal of Applicant ‘C' or any other disabled applicants who may apply to work with Company X are recommended moving forward. A factor, that has not been mentioned so far, is of the building having four elevators, and only two have issues with the height of the key pad. If the company is looking to do a bare minimum, looking to see if the two functional elevators are legally sufficient for the convenience of, disabled wheelchair bound individuals, is worth exploring. The conclusive statement regarding the scenario with Applicant ‘C’ is that even if a violation of discrimination did not occur, the company must still reflect on the importance of accommodating to individuals regardless of physical disability.
National conference of state legislatures. (2013). Retrieved from
United States department of labor. (n.d.). Retrieved from
U.S. Equal opportunity employment commission. (1967). Retrieved from