000400693 Ardoin LIT1 Task 310.1.5-02, 11, 13

Situation A: This situation consists of an employee who has been employed with a company for two consecutive years. This employee’s spouse recently gave birth prematurely to a set of twins. Based on these circumstances, the employee chose request a leave of absence from work, in which he was granted. The employee remained on leave for 11 weeks, at which time he requested to return to his previous role with his employer, and in addition he also requested 11 weeks of back pay for the time that he was out on leave. The employee’s previous manager left the company during the duration of the leave, and was replaced by a new one. The new manager allowed the employee to return to his place of employment as well as maintain his previous pay rate. Given the provisions stipulated in the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), the following will provide supporting evidence as to how the FMLA relates to the facts outlined in this particular situation. The employee was rightfully granted leave based on FMLA, which states that an employee is entitled up to 12 weeks of leave, upon the completion of one consecutive year of employment, for the birth of a child and other domestic hardships. Considering that the employee returned to work within the 12 week timeframe, and was given his previous role with comparable pay, it is fair to say that this action aligns with the provisions of the FMLA. On the subject of back pay for the 11 weeks that the employee was on leave, nowhere in the FMLA provisions does it dictate that an employee is eligible for such reimbursements upon his or her return from leave. The fact that the original manager left the company and was replaced by a new one also has no bearing towards the FMLA and is irrelevant in this situation. Considering the details of this situation and all the facts presented, I conclude that the employee was treated fairly within the boundaries dictated by the FMLA and there were no violations of the act to report.
Situation B: This situation entails an employee that is 68 years of age and has worked for a company for 42 years. During the annual performance reviews this employee received an “above average” rating on her review. Another employee, whom is 32 years of age, works for this same company and was awarded an “adequate” rating on her performance review. The younger employee was given a promotion and the elder was denied with the employee’s age as the given reason. Given the stated facts around this situation and the provisions dictated by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which clearly states that employees over the age of 40 cannot be discriminated against due to age when it comes to employment, discharge, promotion, or compensation. There is also a stipulation that bans any special terms or employment privileges based on age as well. This being the case this situation clearly defines a violation of the employee that was passed up for promotion, especially when given the reason as being due to the employee’s age.
Situation C: This situation involves a job applicant that is paralyzed in both legs and requires wheelchair access to perform his duties. This applicant applied for a position that requires him to have access to the entire facility, including elevators and all connected offices and adjacent floors. The modification of two of the four elevator access key pads would have to be performed in order for this applicant to have ample access necessary to perform his day to day duties. The company denied the applicant the position stating that it would cause undue hardship on the company. Given this situation and all the stated facts around it, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), should be consulted to determine whether there were any violations involved. Considering that the applicant only required that a couple of modification be made to the facility, it is clear that under the “reasonable accommodation” provision found in the ADA, that there was in fact, a violation of the act. The “reasonable accommodation” provision clearly states that, “Physical changes, such as installing a ramp or modifying a workspace or restroom” (ADA “A Guide for People with Disabilities Seeking Employment,” 2000) are fully within the provisions of the ADA and should have been accommodated for the applicant in this particular situation.
References:
(ADA “A Guide for People with Disabilities Seeking Employment,” 2000)