Employment Violations

The Plaintiff will be able to move forward with her suit against the Defendants in the areas of heightened-risk and negligence, here is why:

The court should take a look at what the partners said like, “she was sometimes overly aggressive” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57). The judge should rule in favor of Thelma Jones because she is being sexually discriminated. The employer did in fact discriminate unlawfully because you’re not allowed to tell a woman to be more “femininely” just to get a higher position.

The company has the right to terminate an employee as long as the termination does not discriminate or

Civil rights refer to the constructive activities that the government must conduct to establish equality for all the citizens in the country. In most cases, the term is normally linked with the shielding of minority persons including women, Hispanics, and African Americans (Patterson, 2014). The civil rights are used to counterbalances the rule of the majority in a democracy, which normally disregards the minorities. Therefore, it ensures that all persons are treated equally regardless of their marital status, gender, or races in areas such as housing, education, and employment (Patterson, 2014).

Wrongful Termination (a.k.a. Wrongful Dismissal) is a legal phrase that refers to any situation in which a worker’s employment is ended by the employer (terminated) in breach of contractual terms of employment, or due to any of the following: discrimination, retaliation, an employee’s refusal to be involved in illegal activity, or an employer’s

The company is covered under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. The employee was eligible for unpaid leave, gave notice, and was granted unpaid time off. The employee was reinstated to the same position upon return to work with the same salary.THE COMPANY DID NOT VIOLATE THE FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT OF 1993.

Civil Rights are types of laws that embrace common situations that affect individual’s lives, such as employment, voting, housing, education and public accommodations and facilities. These laws exist as a matter of creating policies that promote opportunities for all persons and equality without regard of gender, race, disabilities, religion or national origin. This legal phenomenon might happen by various reasons: lack of equality in the society, prejudice against minorities, or existence of previous laws that support the oppressed.

A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to a job or things related to someone’s job that allow an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position as long as it does not present too much of a hardship to the employer. For example, an employer must make existing facilities used by employees readily

While discrimination in the workplace based on sex, race, national origin, and other such characteristics can certainly lead to wrongful termination, those types of claims are usually classified as a separate legal topic known as Title VII law (because they are based on protections found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Companies may not terminate their employee because of their nationality, color, race, gender, religion, age, disability, or pregnancy. For the most part, companies have policies set up to which they must abide to when wanting to terminate an employee. The employment status of the employee

1. DePeters, Co. is sued for sex discrimination on the grounds that too few women are hired because fewer women than men achieve passing scores on a required manual dexterity and physical strength test. DePeters, Co. offers in its defense that even though fewer women score high enough on the test, a greater percentage of the passing women are hired. The company maintains that, as a result, the percentage of women in the workforce mirrors the percentage of available women in the labor pool. A group of women who took the test and failed file suit. Explain the basis for the cause of action, and analyze the merits of the cause of action, employer defenses, and likely outcome. Support your response with applicable

What if the employer dismissed an employee without following some procedures proscribed by the contract? The case of Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council (1980) provided an answer on this matter, “if the contract

This case covers the mitigation of damages. An injured party’s damages may not be reduced by mitigation for her failure to accept or seek other employment of a different or inferior kind.

A similar case where an employee claimed unlawful termination in comparable circumstances is Megivern v Glacier Hills Incorporated. In this case the employee, Megivern, alleged that her employer, Glacier Hills Inc. unlawfully terminated her due to her pregnancy. The judgement was ultimately given to Glacier Hills Inc and the termination was sustained. Glacier Hills was able to show the reasoning surrounding Megivern’s termination by providing her performance records. Megivern was a less than desirable employee and the timing of her termination was not due to pregnancy (Megivern v. Glacier Hills

Based on the facts that are presented in this case study it is clear that a company violation did occur when this IT employee accesses a child pornography site. These violations are violations of the company as well as the federal laws that cover child pornography. In this case study the FBI has been contacted and they are in full control of this situation where they have captured the copies of the computer hard drives utilized and they are proceeding with prosecution activities. The other aspect of this case that has a smell of impropriety is that these company officials entered the office without the employee being there to witness the event. To cap the problem here it is clear that the FBI would not allow a company to copy the hard drive

The Applicant was a Philippine woman employed by a hotel under a s 457 visa. The Respondent terminated the Applicant’s employment via email while she was in the Philippines, referring to ‘grounds of misconduct’. The Respondent neither warned the Applicant nor gave her the opportunity to respond prior to termination. The Applicant brought an application for unfair dismissal under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on the grounds that it was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.