Employment Law Hrmg 5700

...

Sally James is a 55-year-old White female that is adored by her co-workers. She was the Administrative Assistant assigned to the overall organization of the failed marketing endeavor. Even though the marketing project was a bust, Jones did an excellent job in her administrative task. She’s been with the company for 20 years, has a son in college, missed 13 days in the past two months, and terminating her would be a financial hardship. The risk the company may inherent from James’s post termination litigation may be Title VII with discrimination against age and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) forbids discrimination against men and women over 40 years of age by employers, unions, employment agencies, and the federal government (Twomey pg. 534). The company could use the defense that the ADEA permits employers to take actions that would otherwise be prohibited based on “reasonable factors other than age” called the RFOA provision (Twomey pg. 5350. Moore Beer Inc. could use the case of Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory if James pursued legal actions. Knolls also had to do a reduction in the workforce and some employees were over 40 years of age. Moore has the reason that even though she does a great job, she has missed 13 days in the last two months that should have been a result of disciplinary action for absteenism. Since James has been with the company for 20 years and if she was to be selected to be terminated, I believe the company should offer her a severance package. Sally would be a liability to the company as of her lack of coming to work and capability to excel within the company. She was okay with being just the Administrative Assistant.

Margaret Jones is a 28-year-old African American female that is a very dynamic salesperson. She’s perceived to be a ladder climber and puller that only looks out for herself. Jones is a smart and talented young lady but she’s not a team player. Margaret is active at a local civil rights group and is known of complaining several times on behalf of other employees that she believes was not treated fairly. Margaret has also missed two months of work. The risk the company inherent from her post termination litigation may be employee-at-will with the exception to public policy.

Some courts struggle with defining the term “public policy” and determining when a termination implicates and is contrary to public policy (Swift pg. 557). Margarete may argue that like the case Palmateer v. International Harvest that she may be terminated due to her standing up for employees that she believes was being treated unfairly from her knowledge and participation in the civil rights group. Jones may also be known as a whistle blower. Moore’s argument could be that she was one of the reasons for the financial loss of productivity and sales due to her 60 day of absenteeism. Margaret could be a liability to the company for her skills to bring up lawsuits on behalf of Moore Beer Inc. regarding civil rights issues, not being a team player, and her absenteeism.

Jenny Williams is a 30-year-old pregnant South America female that is fluent in three different languages in addition to English. She holds a Bachelors in Advertising and severed as the public relation personnel on the failed market project. Jenny is a great worker but has been missing days due to her morning sickness of her pregnancy. Williams also has stress on her from her personal life due to her husband losing his job and the need of healthcare now. She promises that her absenteeism would get better after her morning sickness phase. The risk the company may inherent form Jenny’s post termination litigation may be the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).

PDA is the discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (Twomey pg. 425). In addition to the act, employers must provide the same disability insurance and sick leave to Jenny as well. Moore could disagree with her claim but out of the other four candidate’s jenny has the better chance of winning her suit. The PDA also protects women from termination or other adverse employment actions because of pregnancy (Twomey pg. 426). I’m not sure why Williams was a part of the list for termination but she had no issue within the company before her pregnancy besides the failed market project. Jenny would be an asset to this company due to her Bachelors in Advertising, fluencies in four languages and attendance.

CONCLUSION

Considering my evaluation of the five candidates listed for reduction in workforce, the two I recommend to fill the existing openings are Jenny Williams and Mike Smith. These two employees have the gift and knowledge to adapt within any position of the company. Their advancement in education, work ethic, performance and attendance is the core values of what Moore Beer Inc. looks for in their employees. The competence and determination to advance was the strength that kept with the company. The other three employers had horrible absent that was not only hurting the company but putting their co-workers in a bind as well. A financial burden is always a result of being terminated but Sally was the only one that had 20 years and deserved a severance package.

In order for Moore Beer Inc. to remain a 25 million dollars a year company, they should implement an attendance policy with disciplinary action that all employee know about. They also should invest in training the employees on the employment laws that are beneficial to your company such as Title VII, ADA, FMLA, ADEA, and other laws. Though all employees posed a risk for termination, the goal was to avoid litigation from the termination.

---------------------------------------------------------------

References

Twomey, D.P. (2013). Labor and Employment Law: Texts and Cases. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

http://www2.law.mercer.edu/lawreview/getfile.cfm?file=61205.pdf