From a legal perspective I believe that there are several court cases that support our legal position. The first one in the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Trans World Airlines vs. Hardison et al., 1977 that stated that an employer does not have to provide days off to employees to respect their religious holidays if it creates an undue hardship on the employer. The concern for our company is would the court consider a schedule request and undue hardship in this case. A second case that seems at face value to back our position is Grube vs. Lau Industries, 2001. In this case the court ruled that changing an employee’s work hours does not constitute constructive discharge under Title VII.
a. | prohibits unequal pay for men and women doing essentially the same work for the same employer | b. | prevents employees from lowering the wages of either sex to comply with the law | c. | prohibits labor organizations from causing an employer to violate the law | d. | All of the above.
("Trans World," 2007) Looking to another case in Weathers vs FedEx the decision demonstrates an employee need not use the word “accommodate” or “accommodation” to make a protected request for accommodation to which the employer must respond. Lastly, in reviewing Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook if our former employee did offer us an alternative and our company rejected it then we can cite this case. The case is similar to our current situation except the employee offered an alternative to the employer and the employer rejected it. Legal Recommendation to Avoid Constructive Discharge cases and legal issues around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
If their expectations were not met then Greg Allen Construction Corp. could be held accountable. However, in order for Daniel and Sondra to obtain credit there were required inspections throughout the project. If throughout the process much of Allen’s work was unacceptable then the Estelle’s did what they were supposed to be. If the work was completed and no complaints were made during the inspections until after the work was completed then Allen’s corporation wouldn’t be held liable. That would be due to that the fact that the inspections were to have been assumed to be passed during the work.
According to University of Phoenix Week One Individual Assignment (2007), our issue is that there is an employee by the name of John working for a private sector organization who has intentions of filing a discrimination complaint against his employer (who is unnamed). He must file his complaint within 180 days of the incident in question. He can then present his complaint to an administrative judge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He may first be asked to first fill out a questionnaire which will ask him to state certain information to help the EEOC determine if the issue is in fact legitimate. John has a legitimate claim as long as it complies with the EEOC.
What this essentially means is an established union cannot require employees’ to obtain membership, pay union dues or fees as a condition for employment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). Furthermore, this law states a union cannot refuse to pay the costs of arbitrating a grievance because the employees are not members. In effect, refusal to represent the employees violates the duty of fair representation, which means the employees can choose to sue the union. The common misconception is employees think the right-to-work law protects them from termination by the employer for any reason or no reason at all. In effect, the right-to-work law has absolutely nothing to do with employment-at-will, which gives the employer the option to fire without cause, that is, as long as they did not infringe on any rights for states that have exceptions to this
Elements of wrongful discharge § 904. A discharge is wrongful only if: (1) it was in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy; (2) the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment; or (3) the employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy. Remedies § 905. (1) If an employer has committed a wrongful discharge, the employee may be awarded lost wages and fringe benefits for a period not to exceed 4 years from the date of discharge, together with interest thereon. Interim earnings, including amounts the employee could have earned with reasonable diligence, must be deducted from the amount awarded for lost wages.
The issue before the court was whether “an employer has an obligation to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant equivalent position when the employer has an already established policy to hire or promote the most qualified to the position” (Twomey, 2013, p. 566). The appeals court reversed and ruled in favor of Wal-Mart. The appeals court reasoned that automatic reassignment is not required and that the ADA is not an affirmative action statute. The employer had an established nondiscriminatory hiring policy that required everyone to compete so Huber was required to compete. The appeals court held that an employer is not obligated to reassign a qualified disabled employee over a more highly qualified applicant for the position.
This is where Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 starts. Under this situation, Title VII is relevant it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against an employee for religious reasons or to segregate an employee in any way to deprive them any employment opportunities or limit any employment opportunities. (Findlaw 2012). By not accommodating this employee, we have segregated him from business opportunities within the company. Secondly, it is unlawful to adversely affect the status of any employee based on religion.
Goodyear’s argument against the case was the since the statutory period was only 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could not file a lawsuit about past pay checks, but only those falling under those 180 days. Goodyear simply claimed that Ms. Ledbetter’s claim was time bared. This case is relevant to Human Resource Management because it shows the outcome of what sex discrimination can do if it is not monitored in the work place. It shows the outcome of what a faulty lawsuit looks like, but also gives the perception of what a person might have to do in order to get their full, which in the long run would be most damaging to the company both monetary and publically. I disagree with the outcome of the case; a case of this nature should not be dismissed simply because of the 180 days statutory period.