Employment Law: Different Cases

CASE 1

OSHA being the main legal federal agency, charged with the responsibility of   enforcing   safety rules and health strategies has the mandate to make sure that the statuary laws regarding safety rules  are adhered to by organizations. It should provide a common equal flat form for both men and women to have a save health working condition where less accidents are encountered.

In light of Holborn (1969) OSHA might also advice organizations to incur indirect cost associated with work place injuries. This may include damage to equipments the worker was using, loss of work time and insurance of an extra cost in hiring a new employee. Another possible cost is that, the compensation cost for the employee may rise if the employee was not properly insured. This might cost twice the original cost if prevention measures were taken before.

In conclusion companies which have safety programs tend to have decreased accidents hence less cost is spend on remedial programs. As a result the companies have bust employee morale since they work in safety places. Other companies offer incentives to employees who observe safety precautions as a measure of promoting accident prevention.

OTHER CASES

The American federation is very strict about the laws governing the employees in various organizations. Both the employees and employers are expected to abide by the rules of this policy. After the civil war, the American government had ignored these policies and they were using lasser- fair policy. This was basically to make their economy grow. Most businesses benefited from this. The employees worked for so many hours and under poor working environment yet paid very less. Various labor laws were later introduced by different bodies to protect the workers. Both the employee and the employer are expected to be versed with these rules as it benefits both parties. An employer is expected to give right information to his employee and give frequent training on how to handle the tools and equipments they use in their daily running of the business (Wolters, 2008). Federal and state laws protect all the workers from discrimination.

In case 2, Ms. Riyadh is employed by ABC advertising as an accountant for many years and she proves to be very competent and productive. She wins three national awards for her good performance. Her employer ABC however has completely failed to give her any promotion. The employer claims that her image of being too much religious does not fit for the top position. This shows that ABC Company has discriminated Ms. Riyadh basing from her religion. According to the federal laws, every employee is equal and one is not supposed to be discriminated basing on race, religion, nationality, gender or age. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, one is not supposed to be discriminated from his religion or race or gender or even nationality. Religious discrimination basically is all about giving unfair treatment to workers who have different religious believes. The law does not just protect the traditional believe but it protects even those who have hold their ethical and moral believes. The law does not allow religious discrimination at the working place.

Under Dress and Grooming policy, the law states that, an employer must accommodate the employees religious believes and practices. The employee has a right to practice her religion even in the working place as long as this does not interfere with the organizations schedule. The employee can request for leaves or shifts so as to practice her religious believes. The employee also has a right to put on according to their religion requirement and groom accordingly. Ms. Riyadh has a right to be promoted as she is equally the same like other employees in the organization. Her dressing code does not interfere with her productivity and therefore, she should not be denied the promotion.  The employer should have told her during the recruitment process that that her religious image may affect her promotion in future (Wolters, 2008). This would have made her decide whether to look for an optional job or take up the current job. Because the employer kept this factor silent, then he should pay Ms. Riyadh damages caused and give her all her benefits. Ms. Riyadh however cannot sue the employee to be given the position that she was promised of being the vice president if she performs. This was just a promise that the employer ca decide to fulfill or not. She should just sue the employer to give her promotion but the issue of making her a vice president is not really solid.

According to case 3, all employees are protected from disability discrimination by the Americans with disability Act of 2008. Employees with disability should be given accommodation appropriately (Craig, 2008). They should be provided with modified equipments that fit their physical features. The training materials should be modified so as to make them understand better. The working place should be adjusted so as to make them access so easily. In this case of Unified Postal Services, the employer is putting the employees at health risk. The employer provides video training to the workers and do not care about the deaf workers. This exposes the disabled workers to be prone to the Anthrax that contains lethal. This is a health hazard and according to the labor law, the employee must protect the workers from health dangers. The employee must make sure that the workers are operating on a comfortable working environment. He should provide devices that will make the deaf workers interpret the video training (Burkett, 2006). According to Title IV, of the ADA act, the law requires that the Telecommunications Relay Services provide accommodation for people who are deaf or those who have difficulty in hearing. This Title of ADA is found in section 225 of the communication Act.  

In the case between Bob Smith V Saturn Company, the employee has no job security. He is fired by the employer after arriving late at the working place. Employees are protected by both the state and the federal law. The employer must give a notice before firing his worker. This is just to ensure that the job security of the workers is protected. The company should first compensate the worker before terminating the contract. The employer does not give chance to Bob to explain why he was late in that particular ay. There are some situations that an organization cannot run away from. Understanding the position of the worker does not just motivate the workers but it makes them be self driven.

In case 4, Martha was to be employed in Good Food Supermarket but when she revealed to the employer that she may undergo operation in the near future, the employer decides not to consider her.  The employer decided not to employ her because the job required a lot of movement. Martha does not have a valid argument because she had not been employed yet and the employer had a right to accept or deny the interviewer the position (Craig, 2008). At that particular point, Martha is not yet an employee in the organization and therefore the labor law does not protect her. The employer could argue that his job required one who is potential and able to freely move around. He can whoever advice Martha to apply for another position in the organization that did not require much movement.

In the case of Mohammad, who was an Arab- American, he was being discriminated due to his religion background. Eddy's BBQ who was the employer never punished the colleagues who were insulting him about his religion. According to Title VII, the law prohibits someone from discriminating his or her colleague (Craig, 2008).  The discrimination applies to religion, sex, nationality and race. It is not legal to discriminate someone because of his culture or ancestry background. The employer fired Mohammad, basing on the discrimination factors and this is very illegal. Throwing away a paper cup is not worth one losing his job.

In the case of Patsy V Tom at Irish Pub, Patsy is being abused sexually. This is not allowed according to Title VII. Everyone has a right to work in a comfortable environment and Patsy has a right to take the matter to the court because both the federal law and the ADA law do not allow this in any working environment. Barnes v Train was the first sexual case in the United States (Burkett, 2006). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues rules on how sexual harassment should be handled. This is also found in Title VII where all employees are supposed to be given equal opportunity.