Human resource departments are responsible for effectively, legally, fairly, and consistently attempting to maximize an organization’s return on its human capital investment while minimizing financial risk. This is why labor laws and Civil Acts are placed in the work place and other felicities to insure the well fare of others are without risk and effective(WGU).
Analysis of Situation A
In every situation all bases need to be covered and all information gathered before any request is finalized. It is necessary to establish whether the employee qualified for the leave and whether the terms as stipulated under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) were actually met. The Act requires that for one to benefit from the leave he or she must have worked with the employer for more than 12 months. Employee A had worked for 2 years and it can be deduced that he had successfully completed at least 1250 hours at the work place. The rationale of the law is to make it possible for one to accomplish his professional obligations and personal ones without having to choose one at the expense of another. The reason for the leave must be for the care of a family member who has a serious health condition or one’s own health condition. Employee A asked for the leave to take care of his wife who had prematurely given birth to twins.
In fact, this is one of the reasons listed in the FMLA for this type of leave. It is not difficult to discern that this is a serious medical condition which requires continuous care of the patient. Therefore, employee A should not be subjected to any victimization upon his request of leave. Focusing on the duration of the leave, an employee is entitled to up to 12 weeks of this type of leave, so long as the right paperwork is provided. Employee A had been out for 11 weeks, hence, was still within the statutory period of 12 weeks. Since the issue of paper work is not a concern under this situation, I have confidence that he supplied all the required documentation.
The employee must be reinstated to the same position he held before the leave, so long as he still is able to perform the essential function of the job. Employee A was still able to perform the functions of the job. Hence, he was reinstated to his former position. On the issue of pay during the leave, the Act does not require employers to pay the employees during the leave but any arrangement to the contrary must, however, be respected. Since, there was no agreement to this effect with the employer; the manager is under no obligation to pay the withheld salary for the 11 weeks. The new manager in withholding the salary did not breach any law and this decision cannot be properly said to be discriminatory laws, in this case FMLA (Lau & Lisa, 2013).
Analysis of Situation B
General laws of Human Rights are captured in the U.S. constitution. The Civil Rights are contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The specifics of employment law are contained in various federal statutes that address specific issues in employment law. The employment law to be considered in the current situation is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The brief statement of the facts regarding employee B is that he was 68 years of age and had served Company X for 42 years and was assessed to be above average on his performance. He was allegedly not promoted because of his age with the company preferring a younger employee of 32 years who received a performance review of adequate. First of all, Company X is bound by the Act, since it had 75 employees which is way above the minimum requirement of 20 employees.
As such, Company X in hiring, promoting or firing its employees must pay due regard to the requirements of the Act. Secondly, employee B is currently 68 years old, meaning that he is protected by the Act which states that it protects workers above the age of 40. If the assessment of both employees revealed that the older one was still performing better than the younger one then it would be hard to find a genuine reason for the promotion of the younger employee. Additionally, the situation does not fall under the exception of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) stipulated in the Act.
Under this exception, a younger employee can be preferred to an older one if it is objectively established and to some extent obvious that the job cannot be effectively performed by the older employee. In view of the foregoing, I rest upon the conclusion that there was discrimination on the basis of age in selection of the younger employee for the promotion at the expense of employee B. The fact that the employee was not asked to sign an ADEA waiver or any document to the effect confirms my position. Age was the ‘but for’ reason for lack of promotion of the employee (Lau & Lisa, 2013).
Analysis of Situation C
The only purpose that Company X gave for failure to hire employee C was that such a move would have been costly to the company. Therefore, I would assume that the employee was qualified for the job as the applicable statue (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) applies to qualified but disabled persons. Consequently, it cannot be doubted that employee C was qualified for the job. Secondly, the Act gives considerations of whether the disabled person can perform the essentials of the job. Under this test it would be understandable when a company fails to hire a blind person as a driver. This is impossible since such a person cannot perform the essential functions of the job. Accordingly, the Act also permits the failure to hire a disabled person if it will require reasonable accommodation in order to perform the job.
The essential function of the job would be incompatible with employee C’s situation and as such the level of accommodation required was too high. Company X’s decision not to hire employee C does not amount to discrimination but an instance of genuine distinction. The adjustments needed to accommodate employee C would be too much and, therefore, the decision not to hire him is not discriminatory against him. As a result, employees are more protected since they are the fragile parties in the employment contract bargain. This is because employees can be exploited by ill-intentioned employers. As such employment laws together with other human rights laws take care of employees. The laws also protect the interests of employers by lining the duration of certain leaves, qualifications for some benefits as discussed above and hiring of employees on the basis of merit and not any other considerations. (Lau & Lisa, 2013).
Work Cited Page
1.Lau T.S. & Lisa J.A. (2013) The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business. New York: Flat World Knowledge Inc.