Free Essay

Lit1 - Task 2 - 310.1.5-02, 11, 13 0912

In: Business and Management

Submitted By studyblue
Words 1046
Pages 5
LIT1 - Task 2 - 310.1.5-02,_11,_13_0912

Family Medical Leave act of 1993
The Family Medical Leave act of 1993 (FMLA) ensures that personnel of companies with 50 or more employees, who work within a 75 mile radius of those in need of the leave, are able to take time off in order to balance their personal obligations with their employment commitment. An employee will qualify for family leave if
• they need time off for a serious health condition
• or a close family member requires care because of a serious health condition and
• they have worked for their employer for at least 1 year
• and they worked at least 1250 hours for the employer in that year
• and they notify the company
• and fill out the necessary paperwork in a timely manner
The leave requested by the employee is unpaid and the employer must maintain the employee’s benefits during their time of leave. When the employee is able to return to work they must be restored to the position they held when they began their leave at the same pay and benefit rate. If the employee cannot perform the job function they performed at the time of the leave request they must be given an alternative position at their previous pay and benefit rate.
In our case since Company X qualifies as a company that needs to abide by the FMLA requirements and Employee A met the requirements for time off to care for his wife and premature twins, Employee A was permitted leave from his employment duties for this purpose. On Employee A’s return to work the manager of the department he works for restored him to the position held at the time of his leave request at the same pay and benefit rate but denied Employee A’s request for back pay for the 11 weeks missed fulfilling his family obligation.
It is my opinion that Company A has not violated the FMLA requirements in this situation based on section 102, subsection (c) of The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 which states “unpaid leave permitted.” Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) further states concerning unpaid leave “If an employer provides paid leave for fewer than 12 workweeks… the additional weeks of leave necessary to attain the 12 workweeks… of leave required under this title may be provided without compensation.” (Labor, 1993)

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) makes it unlawful for any employer with 20 or more employees, labor organization or employment agency to discriminate against employees and job applicants age 40 and above. The ADEA applies to all aspects of the employment process. An exception can be made when an older employee is shown favor over a younger employee who qualifies for protection under the ADEA. It is also unlawful for any employer, labor organization or employment agency to discriminate against an employee or applicant who has opposed a practice made unlawful by the ADEA. It is also usually unlawful to post job notices and advertisements with age requirements unless there is a genuine age qualification that might affect normal business operations.
In our case Employee B qualifies for protection under the ADEA since Company X is required to abide by the ADEA and Employee B is over 40 years old. The facts show that Employee B was performing at a higher level than the co-worker given the promotion and was specifically denied the promotion because of his age. Therefore, it is my opinion that Company X violated the ADEA.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against qualified workers with a physical or mental disability that hinders their routine functionality. This would include things like ambulatory, learning or working ability, speaking, hearing, vision, breathing and personal care. The law reaches beyond employee, employer relationships extending all the way to public services, public accommodations, transportation and even telecommunications.
To be protected a person must be qualified for the position and must be able to perform the necessary work with or without reasonable accommodation. Some examples of reasonable accommodation could consist of
• leveling the playing field with those not disabled in the hiring process by doing things such as providing applications with large print, relocate testing to areas that are handicap accessible or helping an applicant fill out the necessary forms or
• modifying equipment to accommodate someone’s disability such as installing special elevator controls, raising a desk, lowering a shelf or making a walkway handicap accessible or
• some other accommodation that would assist someone who is disabled in performing a required job function
Reasonable accommodation would not be required if an employer is not aware of a persons need or it would put an undue hardship on the employer. An undue hardship would be providing an accommodation that would
• require substantial expense compared to the resources of the company or
• impact the operation in an adverse manner or
• hinder other employees from performing their job duties or
• some other significant difficulty
In our case Applicant C qualifies for protection under ADA because Company X is required to abide by the ADA and Applicant C is a qualified applicant with a disability that inhibits routine ambulatory functionality. The facts show that Applicant C was denied employment and told that accommodating their disability would cause undue hardship on Company X because key pads on two elevators would need to be lowered four inches.
It is my opinion that the undue hardship case provided by Company X does not meet the criteria needed to nullify the reasonable accommodation required by ADA for the qualified applicant. The expense incurred to modify the key pads would not be substantial when compared to the company resources and also would not be difficult to implement. Therefore, it is my opinion that Company X violated ADA when refusing employment to Applicant C and then citing undue hardship as the cause.

Works Cited
Labor, U. D. (1993, February 5). Wage and Hour Division, The Family Leave Medical Act of 1993 as amended. Retrieved May 5, 2013, from United States Department of Labor:

Similar Documents