SITUATION A Issue For Review:
Employee A requested to be paid for his 11 week LOA. Management denied request. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a U.S. federal law which requires employers to provide eligible employees at least 12 weeks of unpaid, leave of absence (LOA) time for certain qualifying medical or domestic reasons. The mandates of FMLA guarantee that the returning LOA employee will be reinstated the same or equivalent position, job duties, rate of pay, and benefits they held prior to taking leave.
Covered Employers Eligible Employees
• Private Sector Employers - Any business with 50 or more employees who have worked for 20 or more work weeks within the current -or last- calendar year.
• State/Federal Agencies
• Labor Unions
• Employment Agencies • Employee must work for a federally recognized covered employer.
• Employee has a minimum 12 months of service for employer; prior to a LOA, employee must have accrued service hours which total 1,250 or more.
• Employee reported to a main work location which has a minimum of 50 employees within a 75 mile radius.
Qualifying Reasons For FMLA:
Serious Medical Condition - The employee cannot perform their job duties due to serious health issues. Military Service - Hardship resulting from spouse, child, or parent who is an active member of the military and is called into active service / deployment.
Family Health Condition - Employee must care for a seriously ill or infirm spouse, child, or parent. Children - The birth of a child or adoption /foster child placement in employee's care.

Case Evaluation
Under the provisions of FMLA, Company X, granted a leave of absence (LOA) request to Employee A so that he may be with his spouse, who had prematurely given birth. The employee's request was approved by his then current manager who correctly determined that he was eligible for leave based upon the following two factors, 1) his length of employment (24 months) and 2) his personal circumstances (the birth of a child / serious medical condition of a spouse). FMLA provisions clearly acknowledge the employee's work history and qualifying life event as being valid and, in turn, Company X complied with said provisions by providing the employee with 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
After 11 weeks on leave, the employee contacted his new department manager and asked to return to work. In accordance with FMLA provisions, the employee's manager approved his return to work date and acknowledged that he would return to the same pay, title, and job function. Employee A also requested back pay for his 11 week leave. His manager denied his request.
Findings
After careful review, I have determined the following; based upon the criteria of the U.S. Department of Labor, Company X which has more than 75 employees is considered a covered employer and, as such, must provide all eligible employees with at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave in accordance with The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. As evidenced through the company's actions with Employee A, they have acted in accordance with all FMLA provisions which included providing Employee A with a minimum of 12 weeks, unpaid leave, and a guaranteed return to his previous, or equal, job title and pay rate. Company X fulfilled its obligations and no violation has occurred.

SITUATION B Issue For Review: Employee B denied promotion due to age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967
Enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 seeks to combat unfair employer practices which discriminate against certain individuals aged 40 or older. Additionally, under most circumstances, the ADEA also protects an older employee's job benefits. It is only lawful for an employer to reduce an older employee's benefits when that reduction amounts to the same cost as younger employees full benefits.
Covered Employers Eligible Employees
• Private Sector Employers - Any business with 20 or more regular employees.
• State/Federal Agencies • Labor Unions • Employment Agencies • Employees and job applicants, 40 years-old and above, are protected against workplace discrimination.
• Does not protect younger workers.

Case Evaluation

Most employees, 40 years of age and above, are protected by the ADEA, however there are some exceptions. For instance, elected officials and their personal staff are not protected under ADEA, as well as some executives, who can be forced to retire at the age of 65 if their annual retirement pension meets or exceeds $44,000.
My review of Employee B's file states that he was passed over for a promotion in favor of his younger colleague. Employee B is 68-years-old. The colleague who was awarded the promotion is 32-years-old. Based on the ADEA, not promoting Employee B solely because of his age would be illegal. Further evaluation of both Employee B and his colleague's most recent annual performance reviews only seem to bolster a valid ADEA violation; in Employee B's performance review, his management. described his work performance as "above average". In contrast, his promoted colleague's performance review was only described as being "adequate".

Findings
ADEA explicitly states that age must not be a deciding factor when considering an employee for promotion. In this case, the only valid, ADEA sanctioned reason to not have promoted Employee B would have been due misconduct or poor job performance, neither of which is evident based on his performance review.
Under the scrutiny of the law, promoting a younger employee with an "adequate" performance review over the older, "above average" performance of an employee with 42 years tenure at Company X looks extremely unethical and even harder to defend. For this reason, I believe this a clear violation of ADEA laws.

SITUATION C Issue For Review: Employee B denied promotion due to age. Disabled applicant denied employment due to an "undue hardship" claim from Company X. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local government services, public accommodation, transportation, and telecommunications. (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015)

Covered Employers Eligible Employees
• Private Sector Employers - Any business with 15 or more regular employees.
• State/Federal Agencies • Labor Unions • Employment Agencies • Job qualified employees and job applicants with a physical or mental disability.

Case Evaluation
The ADA mandates that an employer must reasonably accommodate any job-qualified employee or applicant with a disability, unless, that accommodation would cause the employer "undue hardship". The ADA also states that the employee/applicant must be able to perform essential job functions, with or without accommodation. A reasonable accommodation may include equipment modification/installation, flexibility with work schedule, or a restructure of one's job duties.

Applicant C requested an accommodation which would modify the key pads in two of the four building's elevators. The keypads would need to be moved down four inches from their current position. This modification would allow Applicant C, who is confined to a wheelchair, to easily access all of the building's floor levelsa requirement for this position. Based upon the time and consideration given to her accommodation request, it appears that Applicant C was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. However, her request was denied because the time and cost (two days work/$2000) were too significant, and deemed an "undue hardship".

Under ADA law, undue hardship may be claimed if the accommodation is not feasible to the employer, in terms of cost, practicality, or overall business impact.
Findings
As a company with more than 75 employees, Company X's claim of undue hardship does not seem justified based upon the time and cost associated with fulfilling this request. I can see no legitimate reason why $2000 dollars could be seen as an unreasonable expense. I can also find no compelling reason for hardship based upon impact to employee production or operations since, during the (two day work) modification, two of the four elevators would have remained fully operational and accessible to all employees and all floors. Furthermore, if cost was an issue, the ADA states that an employer should give an applicant the opportunity to share the expense of the modification. Was she given the option?
Finally, it appears that the Company X employee who denied employment to Applicant C may not have fully understood what constitutes a legitimate ADA claim of undue hardship or, under worst case circumstances, may have deliberately discriminated against a qualified disable individual. Either scenario is a clear violation of ADA law, and Company X is at fault.

References
(n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/specialtopics/