Situation A Employee A has been with Company X for 2 years, and his wife gave birth to twins recently. He requested leave off work, and was granted said leave. The employee was on leave for 11 weeks, and asked to return to work, and be paid for the 11 weeks he was on leave. The employee was returned to his previous position at his previous pay, but was denied the 11 weeks of withheld salary. The points pertaining to the Family Medical Leave Act in this given situation are whether he was employed at the company long enough to qualify for leave, whether the situation qualified for him to be on leave, whether he has on leave for longer than is allowed by the Family Medical Leave Act, and whether he was permitted to return to work at his previous position and pay. In answering these points, the Family Medical Leave Act states that if an employee has worked at a company for more than 1 year they are allowed up to 12 weeks of leave, therefore since Employee A was employed at the company for 2 years he qualified for requesting leave. The employees’ wife was pregnant and gave birth to twins, and according to FMLA the birth of a child is a qualifying reason for requesting leave. Employees on FMLA leave are able to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave, that being said the employee was only on leave for 11 weeks so he is able to request coming back to work. FMLA also states that after an employee comes back from leave they are to be reinstated at their previous position at their previous pay. Employee A was allowed to return to his previous position at his previous pay rate. Company X clearly stayed within the law in their assessment of this given situation. The employee was granted the leave requested, and was allowed to return to his previous position at his previous rate of pay. As for the employee not receiving the 11 weeks of withheld salary, the law states that FMLA leaves are unpaid for the period of time on leave. It was stated in the given situation that the previous department manager left during Employee A’s leave, and it is possible that the previous manager and the employee had come to an arrangement regarding the employees’ salary during his leave, but unless there is some sort of documentation stating such a case the employer is under no lawful obligation applying to FMLA to pay the employee his withheld salary.

Situation B Employee B is 68 years old, and has been with the company for 42 years. He received an above average rating on his latest performance review, and was passed over for a promotion due to his age. A younger, 32 years old, co-worker received a lower rating on his latest performance review and was given the promotion over Employee B. The pertinent questions in this given situation that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act apply to are is the employee that was possibly discriminated against over the age of 40, is the employee more qualified and willing to work than the younger employee, and is there a reasonable factor in the denial of promotion to the older worker because of his age? The employee under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is protected because he is over the age of 40. Employee A also showed that he is more qualified for the promotion with his 42 years of company experience, and his higher rating on his last performance review than his younger co-worker. In this given situation there is no information given or supporting that there were reasonable factors involved in giving the promotion to the younger employee. In this given situation Employee A has a case to bring against the company for age discrimination. The employee is over 40 years old, more qualified than the younger employee, and is willing to work so Employee A is therefore protected under the ADEA. There is no mandatory retirement age required or covered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act nor was there one given for this situation, so unless the company can state a reasonable factor for denying the employee the promotion due to his age then this is a clear cut case of age discrimination.
Situation C Applicant C is bound to a wheelchair due to both legs being paralyzed. The job applied for requires access to the entire company offices and the use of the elevator. Two of the four elevator cars would need to be modified or replaced in order for Applicant C to be able to use them. Applicant C was denied employment by the company because it would cause undue hardship on the company to fix the elevators. The pertinent points in this given situation are that the employee is paralyzed from the waist down; the company has a seven story building along with four elevators, what is the definition of reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, what is the definition of undue hardship under ADA law, and what is the case for this given situation? In this given situation the applicant is paralyzed from the waist down, and the company has two elevators that cannot be used by the applicant due to the applicant’s disability. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act reasonable accommodations are things that a company must do to accommodate disabled workers so that they can perform the specified job like other workers. Such accommodations could include adding railings bathroom stalls, installing ramps, or in this case modifying elevators. Companies are required to provide such accommodations to disabled workers as long as it will not significantly change the way operations in the company are run or cause undue hardship for the company. Undue hardship under the ADA law is to be considered when changing operations or modifying or constructing structures within the business that would cost the company so much money as to modifications that it could not afford to operate at all anymore. Clearly that is not the case in this given situation. The company’s revenue is great enough that they can afford to modify the elevators for this employee. The cost of modifying the elevators is negligible for the company, being that most standard elevators can be equipped with small boxes containing rods allowing employees with disabilities to be able to reach higher level buttons. That being stated the company is vulnerable to a discrimination suit from the applicant under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In order to remedy this situation and protect itself the company should immediately modify said elevators to provide reasonable accommodations for the applicant, and attempt to hire the applicant to prevent a suit against them.