Genetic Testing In The Workplace

However, the ruling in this case and others like it prove that employers can, in fact, be bound by articles written in an employee handbook when disciplining or discharging an employee. An abysmally written handbook can greatly jeopardize an employer’s right to terminate at will. Trends show that courts are increasingly acknowledging enforceable promises in the past employment practices of firms, in employer handbooks and in oral commitments. In addition to including an at-will disclaimer in employee handbooks, employers should also require employees to sign an acknowledgment confirming that they understand and agree to employment-at-will and that at-will employment can at any time be modified by a written agreement. Personnel manuals should explicitly state that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment at will. All written policies should also be free of any language that could be considered as a guarantee of job security. To be sure that these common pitfalls are avoided employers must retain the service of a labor attorney to draft and air-tight employee manual and acknowledgment

Employers that base employment decisions, including hiring and promotion, on protected class characteristics are engaging in disparate treatment. When they do so overtly and argue that it is necessary to limit a particular type of employment to people with specific protected class characteristics, this type of disparate treatment is termed a facially discriminator policy or practice. An important, but limited, defense is available to employers that adopt facially discriminatory requirement is legal. If an employer can show that a particular protected class characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job in question, the facially discriminatory requirement is legal. According to the Title VII of the Civil Right Act,

Genetic profiling is a contemporary issue relating to the individual and technology which restricts access to unbiased decisions and privacy. Genetic profiling interferes with the individuals bodily, genetic and behavioural privacy, as it can be used for the benefit of identifying bodies to using the results of a DNA test to choose whether to employ one individual over another, due to future concerns. It can easily be argued that genetic profiling is in the need of law reform as a result of legal implications and the lack of individual’s rights.

In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts,

The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. Treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions, must be based on qualifications and merit and not on race, gender, age, sexual preference or how one responds to sexual advances. Yet despite these laws and policies, many employees continue to suffer from workplace harassment and employment discrimination.

One of the things everyone looks forward to is having security. However, the job market has not been strong enough to give job security. Since the Market crashed in 2008, there has been an increase in “at will” employees. At will employment means that the company or the firm has the right to terminate your employment at any given time for any reason with or without a legit cause. At will also give employees the flexibility to quit their job as they wish without giving any notice or reason. In “Employment at Will and Due Process” by Patricia A. Wethane and Tara J. Radin expresses their views on “At Will” employment. Radin and Werhane mention several views on ethical treatment of employees, in principle and in practice, against at will employment. In this article they believe it violates certain rights that employees have, it violates the principle of fairness, and there are certain legal objections.

However, nearly 33% of Gulf War-era II veterans have a service-connected disability compared to only 20% of all veterans. The United states has enacted preference for veterans in one form or another since the very founding of the country. According to Sutton (2014), veteran preferences in the private sector will allow private employers to legally implement preference polices to qualifying veterans. These preferences reflect society’s desire to recognize service-oriented sacrifices and to ease a veteran’s transition back into the civilian world. Military civilians are becoming further removed from today’s society and this has become known as the civil-military gap (Lewis 2011). This often leaves veterans feeling isolated and bitter toward civilian leadership. Hiring preference in the private sector can help close this gap between the civilian and military sectors by giving veterans the opportunities to use there already learned skills and knowledge they acquired from the

Discrimination in the work, purposely or accidentally, not just harms the workers’ work knowledge, but it exposes the company to a lawsuit for violating the laws that defend races and groups. Discrimination against the smaller groups, based on color, race, ethnicity or other groupings,

2008 - The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) - prohibits insurances to discriminate against genetic makeup

Discrimination against veterans and those who serve in the reserve forces of the United States is prevalent and is attempted often for veterans returning from war, deployments, and training. Discrimination can also be found in the hiring of veterans and family members of veterans. Seven signs of discrimination against veterans in

Genetic discrimination is judgement based on one’s genetic characteristics or chromosomes. In 2008, the “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act” (GINA) was passed, this act would prohibit discrimination based on genetics; moreover, GINA would prevent employers and health insurance providers from increasing health insurance rates based on one’s genetic disposition, which I will discuss further. In this paper, I will discuss the key purpose of GINA, summarize the five congressional findings that impelled the formation of GINA.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (2008): Prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is a federal law that protects individuals from genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment or employer-sponsored group health plans contained in the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) . On May 21, 2008 GINA was referred to by its sponsors as the first civil rights act of the 21st century was enacted after a 13-year struggle in Congress.

When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees, ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially, if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason, critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper, “Employment at Will and Due Process”, discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW, and shows Werhane’s supportive view to Due Process. In contrast, EAW is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. In my paper, I will attempt to develop my argument in favor of Employment at Will that could improve flexibility and efficiency of

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is an act of Congress that give individuals federal protection against genetic discrimination concerning insurance and employment; the federal law was enacted on the 21st of May 2008 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). GINA forbids group health organizations including health plans and insurers from denying insurance to a person or charging them a higher fee grounded on their genetic information that may indicate their susceptibility to developing a certain disease in the future. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) equally prohibits employers from conducting job allocations, hiring, firing as well as promotion decisions based on their individuals ‘genetic information. GINA includes revisions to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.