Situation A
Concerning the inquiry regarding Employee A’s qualification to obtain wages while on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 are succinctly clarified in the below paragraphs.
Employee A requested time off due to the unexpected early delivery of his twins. Due to the unexpected circumstance Employee A was awarded leave of his job in order to assist his wife with the care of the newborns. Under the FMLA act an Employee is entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave while the company holds the position for the return of the employee (see below).
Justification of Situation A
“The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides an entitlement of up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave during any 12-month period to eligible, covered employees for the following reasons: 1) birth and care of the eligible employee's child, or placement for adoption or foster care of a child with the employee; 2) care of an immediate family member (spouse, child, parent) who has a serious health condition; or 3) care of the employee's own serious health condition. It also requires that employee's group health benefits be maintained during the leave. The FMLA is administered by the Employment Standards Administration's Wage and Hour Division within the U.S. Department of Labor.” (http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-fmla.htm)
Employee A did return to work after 11 weeks of approved FMLA which is within the time frame of acceptance and according to the family medical leave act there is no entitlement to lost wages; only that he may return back to work at the same rate of pay within the same position, hence his request for paid wages was denied.

Situation B
Employee B recently was considered for an opportunity to advance due to his excellent job performance which was higher than the average comparably. Employee B has also been dedicated employee for 42 years. Employee B was recently passed over for the promotion to an individual 36 years younger as well as a lower job performance rate. The concern is the possibility of discrimination according to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Violation of Situation B
In 1967 an act was passed called the “Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90-202) (ADEA)” which clearly states that individuals may not be discriminated against due to age and provides protection for the older generation of 40 years or older.
“It shall be unlawful for an employer-
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age; or
(3) to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this chapter. (b) It shall be unlawful for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individual’s age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individual’s age”. (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm )

The act also clarifies further, concerning the age aspect of discrimination, which further protects older individuals in regards of hiring and any other aspect of employment. Established under the law an infraction did occur due to the evidence that Employee B was not promoted due to his age. The advancement was given to a substantial younger employee, although Employee B’s job performance is higher than the employee that was inclined to the position.

Situation C

An applicant with disabilities (confined to a wheelchair) applied for a position with company X. This individual was not given the position in which he applied for, which required him to have access to all the floors within the company’s structure. Comments and questions persist as to whether the applicant was denied the position due to his disability with the possibility of being in violation beneath the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Applicant C was informed that he would not be hired due to the fact that two elevators within the structure contained keypads that were placed out of his distance, and for them to be moved lower would cause a hardship on the company.

Violation of Situation C

A law was created in 1990 that prohibits the discrimination of individuals with disabilities which is called The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This act applies to people that have disabilities whether they be physical or mental.

According to the ADA (see below) the accommodation of lowering two elevator control panels would have been reasonable and the cost of this accommodation would not have been of great hindrance to company X’s finances. The company’s claim of hardship is unjustified in this circumstance and is an infringement under the ADA law.

“A qualified employee or applicant with a disability is an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job in question. Reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to: * Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. * Job restructuring, modifying work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position; * Acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or policies, and providing qualifies readers or interpreters”.
(http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-ada.html)

References:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1967). (On-line script). Retrieved December 14, 2013: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm Facts about the American Disabilities Act. (2009). (On-line script). Retrieved December 14, 2013: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-ada.html United States Department of Labor. (On-line script). Retrieved December 14, 2013:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-fmla.htm