An employee took time off due to his wife giving birth prematurely. His requested time off was approved by his original manager as the employee qualified for FMLA since he has been with the company for two years and was for the care of his spouse. Under (1)”FMLA rules certain employees can be provided up to 12 weeks unpaid, job-protected leave per year. The employee must work for the company at least 12 months, have at least 1250 hours during the 12 months and the where the employee work, the company must employ at least 50 employees within 75 miles”. (1) “Eligible reasons for leave to be granted to an employee are: * birth and care of the newborn child of an employee;
* placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care; * to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.”
The employee requested to return to work after 11 weeks, his new manager approved his return along with his pay prior to his leave from the company. The employee’s request for payment of his salary while he was on leave for 11 weeks was not approved. The company would not be in violation of FMLA rules if the new manager decides not to pay the employee. (1)FMLA states that leave is to be unpaid and therefore the company has the right not to pay. The company complied with all the FMLA eligibility rules when they granted leave and reinstated the employee to his original position and pay rate at the end of his 11 week leave to care for his wife and new born children. If the company provides sick or vacation time an employee can take this during their time off. It’s an unfortunate situation for the employee and the company.
The returning employee’s original manager left the company during the employee’s leave and approved his being paid during his leave I feel the following actions should take place. First, attempts to contact the previous manager to confirm the employee’s statement and upon confirmation payment should be granted. Second, the company should show a gesture of good faith and up hold the original manager’s agreement. Third, an amendment to company policy should be put in place to cover future events. Written and signed by both management and employee to the exact terms agreed upon prior to leave under FMLA are to be taken. This is for the protection of the company and their employees.
A company conducts its annual review in which the results reveal one of its senior employee’s (68yr old) is doing exemplary work and another younger employee (32yr old) is doing average work. The promotion was given to the younger (32yr old) employee over the senior (68yr old) employee due to his age. Even though the fact that the senior employee’s work was above par in comparison to the younger employee. The company is in direct violation of the ADEA of 1967 which states (2)“certain applicant and employees who are 40 years of age and older are protected from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” In this case the 68 year old employee could sue the company based on Age Discrimination and win.
A potential applicant who is wheelchair bound due to paralysis of his lower extremities applied for an open position with company x. The applicant would need to have access to all seven floors in order to do their job. The company would need to provide “reasonable accommodations”. Company X denied the potential applicant because of “undue hardship” that would be brought on the company for retro fitting the elevator keypads in two of the four elevators to accommodate the potential applicant needs to gain access to all the floors.
After reviewing the American Disabilities Act of 1990 and the needs of the potential applicant to determine whether retro fitting the existing elevator keypads would create an undue hardship to Company X or not I found the following (3&4) ”Reasonable accommodation is any change or adjustment to the work environment that would allow the disabled worker to perform the essential functions of the job or to allow the disabled worker to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment equal to employees without disabilities. These additional accessibility alterations are only required to the extent that the added accessibility costs do not exceed 20% of the cost of the original alteration. However, the facility is obligated up to the 20% limit. The path of travel requirement covers elevators, ramps, doorways, pathways, drinking fountains, phones, work space etc.”
Company X should provide backup documentation that shows retro fitting the elevators would exceed 20% therefore creating the “undue hardship”. The only alternative suggestion would be not to retro fit the elevators. Two of the four are not in need of retro fitting so if the potential applicant could safely gain access to all seven floors and still be in compliance with “ADA” then Company X would be and only then be in violation of “ADA” when they denied the applicant employment.