Hrm 546 - Human Resources Law - Discrimination

...

Case #4: Almodovar Marchany v. GP Industries Inc. 2001 TSPR 04

I. Synthesis:

Man request process against previous employer, for unjustified laid off. The employer complies that the reason for the laid off was because he affected the peace and tranquility of the employment because he was been intimate with an employee he supervised, both married and to worsen the case, the husband of the mistress was a high executive of the employer. Therefore, the employer states that it was justified.

II. Controversy:

What counts as an improper conduct of the employee included in the employer’s manual, when the cause is not presented under law 80 to consider the laid off as justified?

III. Decision:

Hon. Efrain Rivera Perez spoke on behalf of the court. The laid off was indeed justified since affecting the peace and tranquility of the employment is part of a reason for justified laid off under law 80. The fact that he was involved romantically with an employee he supervised and that the husband is a high executive with seniority in the business, constitutes an improper conduct against the employee. The court revokes the decision of both the Primary and Appellative’s Court.

IV. Supplemental Facts:

Mr. Julio de Leon Cuadrado worked for GP Industries since 1971 to 1995 when he was laid off. He used to work as manager in the Humacao-Fajardo. While being involved in the employment, he was intimately related to Ms. Lyzette Torres, an employee he supervises and who is in fact the wife of Mr. Rafael Nieves Goitia, a managerial executive of the employer. This is the main reason why the employer laid off Mr. De Leon, since it affected the peace and tranquility of the employment and therefore constitutes and improper conduct by an employee under their employee manual. Also, even though Mr. Goitia and his wife were separated, they were still married in the case and that the controversy of the affair impacted the business image and reputation of them. Mr. de Leon, accessorize by Marchany, secretary of Human Resources, presented a lawsuit against the employer for unjustified laid off under regulation 80. The primary court stated that the laid off was indeed unjustified since the reason provided by the employer were not feasible to an improper conduct. Unsatisfied, an appeal was presented with the Appellative’s Court by the employer, in which they denied the request and confirmed the decision of the Primary Court. And finally, a certiorari motion was presented by the employer to the Supreme Court.

Case #5: Rivera Aguila v. Kmart PR 1989 TSPR 599

I. Synthesis:

A woman presents a lawsuit against Kmart under law 3 since she was laid off for her state of pregnancy. The employer states that the laid off was justified for the reason of doing her job poorly after being ascended from cashier to supervisor, therefore being in a probation status before her laid off.

II. Controversy:

Is an employee in a probation state in her employment and laid off protected under regulation 3 of Working Mothers?

III. Decision:

The court determined that a woman in a probation period in an employment laid off during pregnancy, is protected under regulation 3 of Working Mothers. That even though she acted poorly in the supervisor position, another option must be provided to a pregnant woman like change of work duties, but not laid off. The court revokes the decision of the Appellative and Primary Court.

IV. Supplemental Facts:

Ms. Laura Rivera worked for Kmart as a cashier. After a while she was promoted to supervisor of the cashiers. Once a supervisor, she got pregnant and her working pace reduced because of the pregnancy status. Because of her low performance she was placed in a probation status by the employer and given a warning that if this continues through, she would be laid off. After a while with no progress from the employee, the employer fired Ms. Rivera from her employment. Ms. Rivera presented a law suit against her employer for discrimination and unjustified status in the term of her pregnancy being involved in the case. Also, she claims that she is protected UN Law 3 of Working Mother’s even though she was in a probation period. The employer denies the employee stating that an employee in a probation status is not protected against regulation 3 and that her laid off was due to her poor performance as a supervisor. The Primary court sentenced in favor of the employer stating that the laid off was justified and that regulation 3 does not complies with in probation employee. Unsatisfied, Ms. Rivera presented an appeal with the Appellative’s Court which was denied by them and confirming the decision of the Primary Court. Unsatisfied a motion of revision and certiorari was presented with the Supreme Court stating that in probation pregnant employees are protected under regulation 3 of Working Mothers.

Case #6: Delgado Zayas v Hospital Interamericano 94 TSPR 179

I. Synthesis:

Through a certiorari motion, a hospital is requesting for a previous sentence from the district court to be revoked. The sentence state that the hospital must pay Mr. Lino Alvarez Alvarado a total of $1,013 for unjustified laid off after being accused of sexual harassment.

II. Controversy:

Is the situation where an employee violated the regulations of the employer by playing part in a sexual harassment case, be a justified reason for laid off?

III. Decision:

Hon. Hernandez Denton spoke on behalf of the court. After evaluating the case, the court determines that the condition the petitioner suffered may be considered a sexual harassment case. However, in order to do so, the Hospital must present evidence that displays that the employee did not acted in a sexual harassment process during his employment. The court revokes the decision of the previous court and gave the case back to superior court with a timeframe of twenty (20) days so that the representation of Mr. Alvarez presents evidence that such act did not count as sexual harassment.

IV. Supplemental Facts:

Mr. Lino Alvarez Alvarado started working for Hospital Interoamericano on November 1988 as a food service