Legal Issues for Business Organizations
August 8, 2011
Legal Issues for Business Organizations
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was instituted in 1993 in a bid to enhance employment security in form of paid leave to workers who are unable to attend to their duties due to own health problems, offering attention to an ailing family member, or a new child. The Act however is limited in terms of its scope, first to workers in a company that comprises of at least fifty employees and secondly to workers who have held a given position for not less than twelve months (United States Commerce Clearing House, 1993). Employees who have attained the given stipulations are mandated to full income and benefits imbursement for not more than twelve weeks in a given year. Additionally, the worker must be reinstated to the given employment position or a different one bearing the same wage and benefit levels, as well as work tasks.
Using the given requirements within Employee A’s context it is evident that he qualifies for the FMLA cover. First, Employee A has served for two years in Company X meeting the FMLA duration criterion that requires twelve months. Secondly, the basis for Employee A’s absence from work falls within the three offered rationales, precisely the new child provision as reflected by the two premature infants within the family. Thirdly, Employee A’s leave has lasted for eleven weeks with the FMLA maximum period being noted as twelve weeks within an annual duration. Fourthly, Company X has a workforce of more than seventy-five employees and therefore holding the institution to the FMLA provision as the least number of workers is identified as fifty (United States Commerce Clearing House, 1993). The present manager has reinstated Employee A to his former position and wage level in compliance to the FMLA provision with regard to work recommencement. However, by withholding the eleven-month recompense from the employee, the manager acts in contravention to the FMLA recompense condition and thus violating the Act.
The 1967 Age in Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits any form of employment inequity to individuals with at least forty years of age. Within the given Act, all employers are prohibited from withholding work positions, promotions, remuneration, work roles, training programs and job dismissals to individuals within the given age bracket. The Act is officially applicable to all trade institutions maintaining at least twenty individuals within the work force. The bona fide occupational qualification with regard to age in the workplace is only applicable either in clear-cut instances, for instance, if an acting role necessitates a teenager for a given clip, or in instances where public security is necessitated, for instance, the hiring of pilots. As concerned with the latter aspect, ADEA permits employment practices that support the older than the younger but not the inverse relation (Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions, 1968).
In Employee B’s situation, the promotion clearly infringes the ADEA requirements. It is clearly stated that Employee B’s promotion was disallowed due to his age yet his working competence is ‘above average’ meaning that it is good. Employee B is aged sixty-eight and the Act covers individuals with at least forty years of age. Secondly, Company X has a workforce of more than seventy-five individuals and the ADEA is applicable to institutions with at least twenty employees. Thirdly, the bona fide occupational qualification is not applicable in Employee B’s situation since it offers no clear-cut validation or hazardous aspect raised as a justification for the action with regard to the promotion (Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions, 1968). Fourthly, ADEA permits discrimination practices for the older workforce in place of the younger meaning that had the position been offered to an individual over the age of sixty-eight, then the decision would be lawful. However, the position is offered to a thirty-two year old individual equaling to an illegal action and therefore a contravention of the Act.
The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as the name suggests offers safeguards to disabled individuals within the workplace. The Act comprises of five Titles; Title I prohibits denying of a work position to a competent disabled individual in any institution in a workforce of at least fifteen individuals. Title II mandates transportation agencies in the provision of physical access points that aid disabled workers in boarding or exiting from a transport vehicle. Title III entitles disabled individuals a right of passage in public and business buildings by design alternations as defined within the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) later stipulated in 1992 (Miller, Agnes, & John, 2010). Title IV ensures that communication companies offer machines that support talking and hearing services to impaired individuals in conversations with other individuals. Lastly, Title V comprises of the law adjustment section.
Company X’s decision with regard to Employee C has breached the ADA, precisely in Title I and Title III. The company has validated its actions to the fact that appointing Employee C would enhance the cost factor emanating from design adjustments in the two elevators. However, as stipulated by the ADAAG all working institutions are mandated to such modifications in all public structures for easy access. In fact, the ADAAG provisions required that such modifications should have been completed within the same year for new structures or within a sensible duration for existing structures (Miller, et al., 2010). Presently, the given structure has had nineteen years to work on the modifications since the ADAAG provision in 1992 yet it has not. This is a clear indication of ignorance on the Company’s side that should be legally fined.
For Title I, the Company also violates the provision as it denies the work position to Employee C on the basis of cost enhancement as opposed to competence; in other words, Employee C is well proficient for the position and only misses the employment due to the adjustment charges. Lastly, ADA is applicable in institutions with at least fifteen employees and Company X has at least seventy-five workers, and therefore by not hiring Employee C the company violates the ADA provision (Miller, et al., 2010).
Miller, F. P., Agnes, F. V., & John, M. (2010). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Publishing House Ltd.
United States Commerce Clearing House. (1993). Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993: law & explanation. Centennial, CO: Commerce Clearing House.
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions. (1968). The Age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Bangor, ME: Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions.