Legal Issues In Reduction Of Workforce Essay

In an era of organizational flux due to competition and globalization, companies and employees are faced with constant change. Leaders must be able to adapt to change as the environment shifts. HR has been known as the organizational change agent, administrative expert, and employee advocate. More recently they have been regarded as business strategic partners for many organizations. In order to be successful and remain competitive in today’s market, Human Resources (HR) must be considered a strategic partner if an organization wants to flourish. Top executives today commit significant resources to ensure that their company’s functions are capable of rapid change and achieving their

Employment law encompasses remedies that address employee grievances and discrimination that occur in the workplace environment. The foundation of this system is the United States Constitution, which provides two sources of laws and regulations. These two sources are individual state constitutions and the national constitution. Under this system of federalism, there is also the Bill of Rights, which provides the origins of the majority of employment law. The most widely known document is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et.seq.) The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government of the United States create and enforce rules and regulations as promulgated by the constitution. Individuals

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sex, religion, and national origin” (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2012, p. 24). This law also includes discrimination due to sexual orientation. This was not addressed in the original law, but sexual orientation cases have been won under this law. Such is the case of, Heller v Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002) (Joslin, n.d.). This lawsuit was due to a lesbian 's employer used derogatory comments, toward her, in which the court ruled in her favor. Kate 's allegation of discrimination if proved, can be filed with the company 's Human Resource department. If that does not resolve the issue, she can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Jennifer alleges that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. She neglects the fact that Greene’s discharged her because her position, junior executive secretary, is redundant to the company. It is transparently that Jennifer is a member of protected class and was dismissed. Yet Greene’s did not violate The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) under Title VII. According to Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), it is an unlawful employment practice if an employer discharges any individual because of such individual 's race,

According to the website Oyez ,The argument that pregnant workers like “most favored nation” status, was considered by the court. The court held that Congress did not mean to create that status for pregnant employees and also rejected United Parcel Service view that the PDA (Pregnancy Discrimination Act) simply describes gender discrimination to include pregnancy discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act would fail to carry out one of its main purposes: to overturn precedent that rejected a Title VII challenge to a company plan that provided non-occupational sickness and accident benefits to all employees, but no disability-benefits payments for pregnancy-caused absences, stated by the

Twenty states in the U.S currently have laws prohibiting the discrimination based on sexual orientation in public, as well as private jobs. These states include Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington Wisconsin and California. As found by California lawyers, the number of cases filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or DFEH, pertaining to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation has “increased from 636 in 2001, to 714 in 2005 and to 821 in 2008. In 2011, the number of sexual orientation employment discrimination cases filed with DFEH spiked to 1,104.” This drastic increase may be attributed to the advocacy of equality in marriage laws in California and in other

The concept of the FMLA was set in motion through debates over a California law mandating maternity leave for childbirth, which is discussed in greater detail in the “Government” section of this paper. After a federal district court struck down the law in 1984 as sex discrimination against men, Congressman Howard Berman, a Democrat from California, sought help from the National Partnership for Women & Families, then the Women's Legal Defense Fund, in framing a bill that would require employers to grant maternity leave (115). Instead, the National Partnership submitted the idea of a broader leave that would not only meet the needs of new mothers, but address a wider range of work/family conflicts affecting both women and men (116).

There are many issues to consider in pregnancy discrimination. The well-being of the child, the well-being of the mother, employer/employee relations, as well as gender issues. There are however several State and Federal laws that protect people against pregnancy discrimination. Two of the Federal laws are the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

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

Within the Civil Right act was a section entitled Title VII which was created specifically to deal with matters of employment. Title VII’s objective is to prevent discrimination based upon a person’s color, national origin, gender, and religion in regards to all aspects of employment. This protection begins with the initial stages of hiring and training employees and extends up to promotions and dismissals of an employees. If a person belonged to one of the groups outlined by Title VII they became classified as a member of a protected class. (Bohlander and Snell, 101) With the establishment of sex as a protected class the foundation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act had been laid but it would take fourteen years before pregnancy itself would become protected.

The aim of this early conciliation is to encourage as many cases as possible to settle ‘compromising’ the claim through a settlement agreement (previously called a ‘compromise agreement’) an agreement achieved through Acas conciliation (a ‘COT3’). Appendix 3 is an early conciliation Flow Chart (ACAS)

The petitioners argued that Johnson Controls fetal protection policy was a sex discrimination that violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or sex. Johnson Controls argued that it is their legal obligation to ensure that they provide a safe working environment for their employees and that protecting a pregnant woman and her unborn child is their priority. They also argued that they had to exclude all women because it was impossible to tell which women would become pregnant while working with lead. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the case on summary judgment stating that the proper standard for evaluating the fetal protection policy was the defense of business necessity and that Johnson Controls was entitled to summary judgment under that defense. Judges Cudahy, Easterbrook, and Posner dissented the argument and would have reversed the argument and remanded the case for trail. Judge Cudahy concluded that the complexities of the case were manifestly unsuited for summary judgment. The Supreme Court later granted a certiorari and on March 21, 1991, the Supreme Court held that sex-specific fetal protection policies violated the Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment contained in the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right Act. They concluded that unless

Title VII states that an employee cannot be treated differently because of sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When used as a defense, bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) allows an organization to hire and employ individuals on the basis of the qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This paper will discuss the necessary steps employers must take in order to justify using sex as a discriminator when hiring employees and review some known cases where BFOQ was used as a defense.

In a precedent-setting decision in 2000, the state Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a superior court ruling in Carmichael Vs. Wynn & Wynn noting in the text that "discriminatory animus was a factor in the decision not to hire a pregnant woman."