Miriam Automotive Case

Women may find themselves in some accommodation requirement circumstances at work, due to the ability to be both pregnant and employed. This does not mean that they do not have the ability to work. In fact, because of their medical requirements related with their pregnancy, they would need to have some work accommodation made by their employer to make it easier and possible. As result, women have been struggling for years, when it comes too social and workplace equality.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protection’s for woman who are pregnant. A woman cannot be fired because she is temporarily unable to perform her job duties due to pregnancy. A public school will have to treat this teacher as if she were temporarily disabled. The Family and Medical Leave Act states that the school can require the teacher to take unpaid leave. The school also has the legal obligation to give this teachers job upon her return. This however is minimum requirement by law. School districts or individual contracts may have additional benefits allowed to woman in this situation. The Civil Rights Act and The Family Medical Leave Act are the “floor”. These Federal Statutes apply to what they say they apply too. So

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.

Gross Misconduct. If it is warranted, this may be without pay, should the evidence appear

Requiring insurance company plans to cover people with pre-existing conditions, including pregnancy without an extra charge: insurance companies cannot reject a consumer’s application due to pre-existing condition or charge a consumer more due to the pre-existing condition

A month previously Ramos received a phone call to a company hotline from fired employee, Betty Koster, who had been working in the accounting department for the past 8 years and believed that her termination was based on age discrimination. As Ramos already knew from her experience, calls from employees usually lead to investigation and should be handled immediately in order to avoid any possible lawsuit. After investigation of Koster’s employment file and interview with her supervisor, Simon Peel, Ramos understood that she needed evidence from Koster about age discrimination, since having been the oldest in department and the only person fired does not prove the allegation. When Ramos conducted a second call to the employee, Koster was very emotional and revealed new information about possible noncompliance with accounting procedures. Based upon her statement, sales representative Mark Tomkin, was alleged to have asked the accounting team to process entries without required approvals and or all required documents. Koster was the only one who did not agree to post anything into the accounting system without supporting documents. This was the reason why she believed that she had been fired.

The school board also ruled that the expectant mothers could not return to their duties until the next semester started, the teacher acquired a certificate proving a clean bill of health, and that the baby is three or more months old. Unfortunately, even with the guidelines, the teachers were not promised their teaching positions back after the child’s birth. Instead, they were guaranteed a teaching position, but quite possibly not the one they had before. (Legal Information Institute)

The primary reason why Ford designed the VEP was that Ford believed its stock was undervalued and the undervalued stock was limiting the company 's ability to use its stock for acquisitions or to attract, retain or incentivize employees. Ford thought the VEP would enhance the value of its outstanding shares because the recapitalization will highlight its cash reserves and cash flow generating capacity, and also indicates management 's confidence in the future of the business. In addition, Ford believed the adjustments in the employee incentive plans by the recapitalization will tie Ford management 's compensation even more closely to the performance of its stock price.

Pregnant mothers are viewed as a business made for doctors and hospitals as insurances typically cover infant birth and hospital bills. As Patricia Burkhardt, Clinical Associate Professor, NYU Midwifery Program could not speak the truth any better, she states, “Hospitals are a business. They want those beds filled and emptied. They don’t want women hanging around the labor room.”

The negative mind-set of employers on pregnant employees plays an important role in causing discrimination. Women’s performance ratings were seen to decline after being pregnant, from “superb” to “terrible” as shared by one victim of pregnancy discrimination. This is because they are perceived as “overly emotional, often irrational, physically limited, and less than committed to their jobs” as compared to their non-pregnant woman counterparts and are hence “less valuable and dependable.” There is also the problem of additional workload for remaining staff or the potential need to hire temporary staff to tide over the maternity leave period. To compound the issue, employers suffer uncertainty as to when the employee will return to work, or worse, the employee leaves for good after their maternity leave period. In fact, a study done shows that only 60% of women go back to work within two years of their maternity leave. It is hence unavoidable that employers, being cost sensitive, worry that all the extra cost incurred will ultimately become a meaningless loss if their pregnant employees do not return to work.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also establishes that an individual can not refuse employment or a pregnant woman based on her pregnancy or prejudice of others. The employer can not single out pregnancy conditions to assume their ability to work. If she is unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, she must be treated the same way as with disabled employees and be provided with job stainability if gone on maternity leave.

A woman is eligible for “Maternity leave” if, “She is absent from the employment for a period not exceeding eight weeks for the purpose of giving birth; or if she gives her employer at least two weeks of notice of her anticipated date of departure and intention to return.” (“Maternity Leave Act”, 2007) Thanks to these numerous regulations and rights, in these specific circumstances the employees have to be treated fairly, and cannot be discriminated. There are legal penalties when employees are not treated

The EEOC website states: "the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment" (Pregnancy discrimination, 2012, EEOC). Pregnancy is considered a temporary disability, and as such employers must provide the employee with alternative assignments or lighter duties, disability or unpaid leave, as they

If I were in the position of the pregnant employee, I wouldn´t agree if the company fire me. As pregnant employees are overprotected, I would fight against the company until they lose the case.

companies and investments in financial instruments. Fourth, the currency turmoil affects U.S. imports and exports as well as capital flows and the value of the U.S. dollar; the U.S. deficit on trade was rising as these countries import less and export more. Fifth, the crisis is causing economic turmoil that is exposing weaknesses in many financial institutions in Asia; some have gone bankrupt. The economic problems of the troubled Asian economies are adversely affecting the United States, Japan, and others.