There are several things that should be considered before one can determine whether or not Company X has violated certain provision/s of a particular federal law. One, if there is a case to consider – given the abovementioned situation. Secondly, if indeed there is one, which federal law is to be applied. Thirdly, if there is the violation and if there is a federal law to govern it, whether such federal law has jurisdiction over the company.
Drawing from the fact that Employee A has issues regarding his eleven-month leave to attend to his spouse who has just given birth to twins, this is clearly one case which can be governed by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which “provides certain employees with up to [twelve] 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year” (United States Department of Labor, n.d.). It is the federal law which mandates employers to allow eligible employees to have leave of absence for reasons, and among these is “for the birth and care of the newborn child of an employee…” (United States Department of Labor, n.d.). This act has jurisdiction over “all public agencies, all public elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50
Need essay sample on "Business Comparison"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
Although this act has been “designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing them to take reasonable…leave for certain family and medical reasons” (United States Department of Labor, n.d.), this right does not extend to such leave being paid. So, the new manager was not in violation of any federal law provision when he only allowed Employee A to have his old job back, at its previous rate, but not his salary for the whole duration.
Various important points can be drawn from the pieces of information deduced from the situation, which will be very helpful in analyzing and eventually deciding whether or not Company X has violated any federal provision of law. The ages of the parties concerned are two of the most important inkling that gave the author an idea on which federal law will govern the case at bar. Next would be the action taken by company, which is directly related and very relevant to the employees’ ages – in this case Employee B is 68 years old, and a co-worker, who is 32 years of age.
Given the fact that Employee B is 68 years old automatically has him covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). This act “protects individuals who are [forty] 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age” (U.S. Equal Employment, ADEA, n.d.). It is also worth noting that this Act applies to companies who 20 or more people on its payroll; and since Company X employs more than 75 people, then the company should recognize and adhere to the provisions of this particular act. As the case tells us, a promotion was at stake and such promotion was given to Employee B’s co-worker who is a lot younger than he is. The awarding of the promotion appears to have been based on the ages of the two employees who vied for the position, and not on their performance rating. This is evident because as stated in the facts, during an annual performance review just the previous month, Employee B’s rating was “above average” while his co-worker’s was just “adequate”.
With all these in mind, we are now ready to address the question as to whether or not Employee B was aggrieved, and if Company X violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. It appears to be so. “Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ADEA, n.d.).
Summarily, the author arrives to the conclusion that Company X has indeed violated the express provision of law against age discrimination when Employee B was passed over the promotion because of his seniority.
This particular situation gives us the pertinent information we need in order to substantiate the claim that in the case at bar, Company X is in violation of a federal law, particularly the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It is imperative to start with the fact that a party involved is one who is considered, by law, as disabled. Title I of this Act deem a person to be disabled if he “has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, American with Disabilities, n.d.). This will be a critical element as we proceed in our analysis of the situation at hand. Next, we have to determine if the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 governs Company X based on the provision of the Act establishing the coverage and extent of such act. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments… [and] also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations” (n.d.). As the description of Company X has been provided in the case, it has more than 75 employees. This means that the Act that has the authority over disabled people has jurisdiction over the company.
Thus, the prohibition against “private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ADA, n.d.) prevails. Company X has violated this provision when it reasoned out to Applicant C that his/her employment would cause the company undue hardship. As the law provides, undue hardship is dependent upon the size of the company, its resources and the nature and structure of its operations (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ADA, n.d.). To accomodate the needs of Applicant C, it would only require adjusting the key pads in two of the four elevator cars so that it would be accessible to him/her. This does not equate to undue hardship for the company. Given all these, Company X is clearly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
United States Department of Labor (n.d.), Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Retrieved on May 25, 2009 from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html