University of Phoenix Material

Employment Laws Chart

Complete the chart below using information from the weekly readings and additional research if necessary.

Employment Law | Description and Requirement of Law | Court Case Influential to Establishment of Law | Importance of Law | Workplace Application | Civil Rights Act of 1964 | The landmark legislation in the US that holds against discrimination against racial, ethnic, national, and religious minorities. | Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) is a US case law the US Congress has power to use the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to force businesses to follow the Civil Rights Act of 1964. | This law ends the unequal application of racial segregation in the workplaces or public facilities. | Because the US Supreme Court ruled Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in private facilities or workplaces, it holds businesses must allow customer business from all races. | Equal Employment Opportunity Act | It ensures the fair treatment without regard to race, religion, color, national origin, or gender. | In Trans World Airlines v. Thurston (1985), the court holds that airlines must give the same opportunity to retiring pilots as it had given to younger disabled pilots. | This law is to ensure discrimination in employment is illegal. | All employees and applicants for employment are covered under this legislation. This law is to eliminate discrimination practices in workplace. | Equal Pay Act | It ensures that everyone has the same amount of payment of wages by employers. | Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Company (1970) is one of the important cases that help the US define the limitation of equal pay for men and women while the court holds that a job title with less pay regarding an employee’s gender is discriminating and illegal. | The law is to eliminate the payment inequality based on gender. | Employers cannot adjust the amount of wages based on an employee’s gender. | Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 | It protects the illegal discrimination against anyone 40 years old and older in the US. | Mahoney v. RFE/RL, Inc (1995) holds that age limit in employment is not allowed. | It protects individuals who are older than 40 with the same opportunity as younger individuals. | Employers cannot favor younger employee over an older employee in the workplace. | Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 | This law is to protect against discrimination based on disability | In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, Target Corp was sued because the company website failed to design for persons with vision issues. | This law is to protect people with disabilities and ensure they have the same equality as everyone. | Employers cannot discriminate against a candidate with a disability. This applies to hiring, job training, and other conditions related to employment. | Civil Rights Act of 1991 | This act is the response to numbers of US Supreme Court decisions that has limitations on the rights of employees who sued their employers for discrimination. | Martin v. Wilks (1989) holds that it is permissible for white firefighters who were not party to the litigation establishing any form of consent hiring or promoting black firefighters in the Fire Department. | This act is to combine two different civil rights acts in the past while Civil Rights Act 1866 and Civil Rights Act 1964 passed over 50 years ago and the discrimination issues approach differently. | This act is to combine two old acts together. It states that employee have certain limitation to sue their employer citing discrimination. | Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 | This act requires employers to provide job-protected and unpaid leave for their employees regarding medical or family reasons. | Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md. (2012) holds that the state is under the protection of the self-case provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. | This requires larger employers to provide unpaid leave to certain workers in the US. | This law means employees have needs of balancing family and works, and it provides certain protections to workers. | Privacy Act of 1974 | This act limits the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals. | In Doe v. Chao (2004), while a group of workers’ social security numbers is made public and is used to identify certain claims, and they sued for emotionally distress, the court holds that under the Privacy Act must prove the actual harm, not just emotional distress. | This act protects personal identifiable information that cannot be made public without notice or consent by the identifiable person. | Employers cannot disclose their employees’ personal information publicly without the employees’ consent and notice. | Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 | This act holds workplaces should be drug-free | In Treasury Employees v Von Raab (1989), the court holds that requiring employees to provide urine samples is reasonable for certain circumstances. The court also ruled positive test results could not be used in criminal prosecutions without the employee’s consent. | This law is to maintain the workplace drug-free. | This law means all employers and employees should have to be drug-free in maintaining the workplace safety. | Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 | This law is to regulate employers to use lie detector, i.e. polygraph tests for any employment or work-related activities such as hiring. | In Harmon v. CB Squared Services, the court holds that although employees previously agreed to submit mediation for any claim legally, it prohibits waivers’ right to bring lawsuit in court for violation at workplace. | This law holds employers cannot discriminate employees if they decline to take a polygraph test. However, this law permits polygraph testing under certain applicants, such as jobs related to security firms. | This law holds that any employer cannot discharge, discipline, or discriminate against their employees or job applicant for declining to take a polygraph test. | Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) of 1988 | It is the law to protect employees, their families, or communities that when employers with more than 100 employee close the business, it needs to provides at least 60 calendar days advanced notice for such action. | In North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas (2005), although WARN authorizes legal action from employees against their employer who fails to give notice, it provides no limitation period for the action. While in this case, the employer laid off 85 employees without 60 days notice, the court holds that there is no limitation for the period of the action. | The law is to protect employees including their hourly wage and salaried workers. | This law allows the employees to have time to adjust to the loss of employment. |

References

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 132 S.Ct. 1327 (3/20/12)
Decenzo, D.A., Robbins, S.P. (2007), Fundamentals of Human Resource Management, 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOE V. CHAO (02-1377) 540 U.S. 614 (2004) 306 F.3d 170
Harmon v. CB Squared Services Incorporated, Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/3:2008cv00799/237288/13/
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989)
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab 489 U.S. 656 (1989)
North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas - 515 U.S. 29 (1995), Retrieved from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/29/case.html
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985)