The Value of Fair Treatment in the Workplace
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
The Value of Fair Treatment in the Workplace
Federal laws that are most important for protecting employees from workplace discrimination. Provide a compelling argument for the effectiveness of the legislation in protecting employees and two case law examples to support your assessment.
Fair treatment in the workplace has over the years been upheld mostly to give the employees job satisfaction and a work environment that promotes productivity. There are several federal laws that have been put in place so as to promote equality in a working environment (Jennings, 1). One of these laws is the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII, which has undergone numerous revisions (Cheun et al., 2). It guards against discriminatory practices related to racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and country of origin for both staff and work candidates. People who are forty years old and above are protected against age-based job discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as modified.
Babbitt, et al. v. Albertson’s is a case law discrimination example worth mentioning. A lawsuit was filed in California challenging the exclusion of inferiors and females from promotions and employment prospects at large grocery shop companies (Kawasali, 3). Another example was that of the case law of Cahill et al V. Nike Inc. On behest of 4 complainants and a potential class of women employed by the Nike, Inc. headquarters and claim that Nike treated them unfairly terms of pay, promotions, and initial job assignments based on their sex, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho filed the lawsuit for satisfactory standard with co-counsel (Klein et al., 4). Both cases were filed because the women employed were treated differently from their male counterparts which is unfair and illegal.
Explain the actions employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States.
People are often drawn to live illegally in the United States to pursue employment opportunities. The legislation that imposes fines on companies has the goal of removing this magnet by compelling firms to recruit only those who are lawfully able to work in the US: United State citizens, noncitizen nationals, legal permanent residents, and noncitizen immigrants who are permitted to perform all qualify. Therefore, the employer must determine if a newly recruited worker has the legal authority necessary to be employed in the United States (Jennings, 1). Employers must take the following actions to ensure that they comply with the law in the United States by verifying legal employment. First, all employers must verify the employment authorization and the identity of all the employees they recruit. To do this, employers must fill out and keep a copy of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, for every employee they hire. When an employer completes the I-9 procedure, they authenticate an employee’s identification and employment authorization by reviewing the employee’s original papers and choosing the employee from a list of eligible documents. Lastly, to verify legal employment in the US, employers must refrain from treating people differently based on their citizenship or national origin (King et al., 5).
Some states do not allow undocumented workers, or those not legally permitted to work in the United States, to receive workers’ compensation benefits. Provide the law in your home state and a compelling and supported (with research) argument advocating for or against your state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law that, by its words, applies to any person who works for a company, as that term implies under the FLSA. There is no exception or exclusion in the FLSA for people who are not nationals of the United States or who are here unlawfully (Luckstead & Devados, 6). Because of this, the court system that have addressed the matter have consistently concluded that any employee of a company, regardless of immigration status, may bring a claim under the FLSA for work that was executed. In the Texas state, the lowest pay permitted by law must be paid to undocumented people. Only if the company provides the worker at minimum one and a half times the normal pay rate for the additional hours performed, they are not permitted to work more than 40 hours each week (Luckstead & Devados, 6). If their wage and hourly compensations are not satisfied, they may also file complaints with the district’s office.
Provide a comprehensive summary of the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine that includes all possible legal exceptions to fight wrongful termination.
The Employment-at-will doctrine refers to an employment contract that states that the employee will be employed for an unspecified period and that the employment can be ended by either the employer or the worker (Jennings, 1). According to Jennings, most workers are subject to their employers’ whims and commands in the Employment-at-will doctrine (8). Thus, workers are subject to dismissal without any prior warning from their employer. In addition, the workers are free to quit whenever they like and will face no legal consequences. In the case of employment subject to the worker’s discretion, a clause to this effect would generally be inserted explicitly in the applicable employment contract. Although an employment contract may include an at-will provision, there are certain cases where termination of employment could still be unjust. According to the National Conference of the State Legislature, the Employment-at-will doctrine contains three main exceptions, likely to vary by state (7).
The public Policy Exception is the first exception to the Employment-at-will doctrine. The Public policy exception prohibits employers from firing workers violating recognized state public policy. This implies that an organization cannot fire a worker for refusing to do anything that would be against the interests of society. For example, a worker may not be fired in some states for submitting an employee’s compensation claim following an injury sustained at work. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (7), the Public Policy exception contains four main categories: a worker declines to do anything against the law in a particular state. An employee is whereby employee refuses to lie in court when being sworn in. The second category is in reporting an employer’s illegal behavior. An example is a case where a company is manipulating its accounting documents so that it can seem to be more profitable. The third category is whereby a worker engages in actions that benefit the general public, like joining military service or serving jury duty. The final category is performing a stator right. An example is when an employee files a claim under the state employee compensation law after getting injured while working.
The next exception to the Employment-at-will doctrine is the Implied Contract exception. An employee may rely on the supervisor’s actions to infer a promise of continued employment for a certain period or even indefinitely under the implied contract exception. This might be in the form of a promise made by the employer, the company’s policy of only terminating workers for a reason, or a statement made in the employee handbook. An illustration of an implied contract is when a manager promises an employee that they have a permanent job in the company. Another example of an implied contract would be when an employer guarantees the worker that no matter how serious the wrongdoing, they would always be allowed to fix it before being fired. This rather general phrase might have negative consequences if the employee decides to steal from the firm. It’s worth noting that even in the absence of a formal contract; the employee may reasonably conclude that their job will continue indefinitely.
The final exception to the Employment-at-will doctrine is the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (National Conference of State Legislatures, 7). Currently, only a small number of states recognize this exception. A termination of employment for cause by the employer falls under this exception. An example of this exception is when there wasn’t any genuine cause for the termination. Still, the employee was due to earn a big bonus, and the employer dismissed the worker so that they would not have to spend the expenditure of paying the bonus to the employee after the termination. Two standard law exceptions to the EAW exist, both of which are difficult to show in court but worth discussing. The first one is promissory estoppel which arises when a potential employer makes a direct offer of employment. For example, the employees and their families have relocated to another state, and the company decides to rescind the job offer before the individual can start. The other exception is the intentional infliction of emotional distress. An employer causes an employee emotional stress that goes above and beyond what is considered “normal” for the position, and the employee responds by resigning.
Cite and support (with research) an appropriate EAW exception that the employee in the following scenarios could reasonably argue to save their job.
Scenario 1: JoAnn, a manager, started a blog on the company website for employee grievances and problems. She noticed that a worker was protesting that allegedly no Asian American employees had gotten a raise in two years at the company. Christine, the employee, also criticized how much CEO Elon had made last year and how he was “out of touch” with the realities of his employees. JoAnn reminded Christine that she was an employee-at-will. The next day, Christine talked to her co-workers about forming a union. JoAnn fired Christine and Christine is suing for wrongful termination.
Since Christine did not violate any laws when she voiced her thoughts about the firm and pay rate, I would say that it would be wrong to terminate her from her position from an ethical standpoint. Christine was likely being truthful when she stated that Asian-Americans did not receive a boost in salary in the past two years while their non-Asian colleagues got a raise in pay rate. Employees have every right to debate the possibility of creating a union in their workplace. The National Labor Relations Board states that if your workplace allows you to discuss other non-work-related subjects during working hours, your employer cannot restrict you from discussing the union within working hours (9). Since JoAnn has already informed Christine of her status as an employee-at-will, it is impossible to terminate Christine’s employment legally. It is possible to establish in court that JoAnn threatened to fire Christine and that Christine’s employment was terminated while she was having conversations with other workers about the possibility of joining a union. According to the National Labor Relations Institute, it is against the law to make threats or to carry them out against a worker who promotes a union (9).
Scenario 2: Steven, a department supervisor, fired his secretary, Ann. Ann, a devout Christian, had been putting Right-to-Life flyers in the employee breakroom. Steven talked to Ann twice and reiterated her actions were not appropriate. Ann continued to leave the pamphlets and took time away from work to pray at her desk during the busiest times of the morning. Ann is suing for wrongful termination.
Provided that Steven dismissed Ann, his secretary, purely because of her pro-life beliefs and the fact that she was conducting her prayers at her desk in the workplace, it was not ethical for Stephen to fire his secretary. For it to be presumed ethical for him to terminate Ann’s employment, it would need to be thoroughly investigated that Stephen had noted numerous instances in which Ann was not conducting to written expectations and guidelines, absenteeism, or any other legal means that could be used to terminate an employee’s employment.
According to the law, Ann is permitted to pray at her workplace provided that doing so does not place an unreasonable burden or one greater than the minimum necessary burden, on the company’s operation. Ann can pray at her desk, and several acceptable solutions exist. For example, a schedule switch or change could be made to help her out as she wants to pray during the busiest hours in the office. Some employees are pretty serious about their religion and beliefs and should be allowed to pray at work. In this case, instead of Stephen firing Ann, he could have vacated one room that can be used by all employees when they need to pray so that their religious needs can be accommodated.
Sources
Jennings, Marianne. 2022. Business: It’s legal, ethical, and global environment (12th edition) Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Cheung, Ho Kwan, et al. 2016. Understanding and reducing workplace discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ho-Kwan-Cheung-2/publication/305356387_Understanding_and_Reducing_Workplace_Discrimination/links/5ad5411c0f7e9b285936b0dc/Understanding-and-Reducing-Workplace-Discrimination.pdfKawasaki, Kenta C. 2016. A Genetic Analysis of Cichlid Scale Morphology. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1452&context=masters_theses_2
Klein, Felice B., et al. 2021. The gender equity gap: A multistudy investigation of within-job inequality in equity-based awards. P 734. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000809King, J. W., Kersey, N. A., & Burritt, J. E. (2012). The essentials
Luckstead, Jeff, and Stephen Devadoss. 2019. The importance of h-2a guest workers in agriculture. P 1-8. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/cmsarticle_679.pdf
National Conference of State Legislatures
https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspxMarianne M. Jennings. (2018). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (11th ed.). Cengage.
National Labor Relations Board https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-rights-during-unionorganizing
