LIT1- Task #1

Provisions of FMLA: In 1993, congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, they developed this bill to assist employees that needed to be out for extenuating, planned, or unforeseen medical circumstances. To remove the fear and worry of losing one’s current place of employment. The creation of this bill gives, employees the ability to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, although they do have the option of using all of their calendar year given vacation time to compensate themselves while on FMLA. Because employee A, fell into several of the major FMLA provisions, he had been granted the ability to take leave.

How FMLA Applies: I do believe that the Family Medical Leave Act applies to employee A. As I have found, several areas that favor his rights to take FMLA. The birth of his children, the health of his children as they were born prematurely, and lastly he has the right as a spouse to take care of his wife and children. Although, he has the right to take leave, through the Act, this still does not require us as the employer to pay wages for the 11 weeks he did not work. We have followed the law, and the law says that we must hold his job, and continue to treat him as an employee that is on leave.

Did we violate FMLA? I have found that no violation has occurred between us and Employee A. We have allowed employee A to take leave as he requested, we allowed him the full 12 weeks, although he wants to come back after only 11 weeks. In addition, to us following the stated rules. We have also allowed employee A to return back to his previous held job, with the salary he was making before he left. The new manager was within his right to reject the back pay of the 11 weeks. Because it is not a policy of our company to pay while on unpaid leave, and according to the FMLA, we do not have to.

Situation B: Age Discrimination
ADEA
During the 1960’s a discriminatory trend in workplaces had begun to rise, as workers over the age 40 and over were targeted for dismissal, looked over for promotions and unfairly paid wages. This was brought up by voters and congress began to take steps to create a legal solution. What came out of that collaboration was new legislation titled (ADEA) or Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967. This bill has several protections that enforce equal employment rights for all employees aged 40 or over. Several practices that have been made illegal are, discriminating based on age in hiring, based on age in promotion, or even compensation. At this point all, of these listed actions are considered illegal and gives employees the right to file a grievance with the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

How ADEA applies to situation B: Within situation B, we have an employee that is 68 years old. In addition, to his age we are told that he has just received his annual review and has received a rating of “above average”. Secondly, we have another employee that is 32 years old, and has also received their annual review, but they have only received a rating of adequate. However, both employees were up for a promotion, but one was clearly denied the promotion, due to his age being over 40 years of age. We have chosen to overlook an employee’s quality of work, because of him not being under the age of 40. Not to mention, he is also a longstanding employee of over 30 years.

Has an ADEA violation occurred? My research has shown me that we are in direct violation with the (ADEA). Two areas that we are at gross negligence, with the Act would be not promoting employee B because of his age, and then creating terms that show unfair assessment of quality of work. We clearly have a qualified employee that has been with the company for many years, performs work duties at above average ranking, and yet still was denied a reasonable promotion due to him being over the age of 40. According to the law this employee can file with the (EEOC) and we would have to remedy the employee. My suggestion is, we should extend the promotion to employee B. Or we may risk having, civil rights fines, levied upon us. Not to mention the court of public opinion destroying our reputation.

Situation C: Disabilities Act
ADA1990
Not all disabilities are equal and in many cases, disabled citizens are capable of performing jobs that non-disabled citizens do on a daily basis. Through the years, modern medicine and technology, have allowed more and more disabilities to no longer hinder job performance. However, human nature still creates prejudices and a clear lack of knowledge when hiring or placing a disabled prospective employee. In 1990, congress passed a bill called The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This act makes it illegal for companies to deny employment from disabled workers when accommodations can be made. It also requires municipalities to provide equal access to transportation, and public usage areas.

Situation C: How ADA Applies Situation C explains to us of an applicant that requires the use of a wheelchair. This is relevant because the job that the applicant is applying for requires mobility and movement throughout the seven floors of the building. The building currently has 4 elevators, but it appears that the key pads are not regulatory height for an employee limited to the height of a wheel chair. With this said, to become in compliance, with the ADA, we would need to lower the keypads 4 inches to become more accessible for prospective disabled employees. To accomplish this task with two of the four elevators, we have found a cost per elevator of 1000.00.

Situation C: Is there a Violation As we have denied employment to applicant C, I have found that our building is not in compliance with ADA standards and for us to deny employment to the applicant based on their disability would be in direct violation of the American Disability Act. Although the ADA bill does give exceptions to having to perform these upgrades, and or hiring an applicant with a disability, if it will cause undue hardship on the business. This is not a viable reason for not hiring the applicant for employment with our company. During the process and consideration of Applicant C, we had to perform a cost analysis to find out if we could afford the upfront cost to hire the disabled applicant. During our research we found out the cost would be $2000.00 to move the keypads in two elevators, this should not be an expense that would cause undue hardship. If we need funding to assist with retrofitting our building for disabled employees, there are several government programs that can help us. For example: the Capital and Training Assistance Grant. We need to find a solution that allows us to hire this applicant, before we face a lawsuit that we would lose, and end up costing us more than the 2000.00 for keypads to be moved four inches.

References
United States Department of Labor (2016).FMLA. Retrieved January 23, 2016 from http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla
United States Department of Labor (2016).FMLA. Retrieved January 23, 2016 from http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
United States DOJ-Civil Rights Division(2016) Retrieved Januaray 23, 2016 from
http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm