Unjust Discrimination In The Workplace

Title VII Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (EEOC, 1997). This law applies to federal, state and local employers. The above conditions may not be used to refuse to hire or for terminating an individual or in other words discriminate against any individual (EEOC, 1997). In order to release an employee in any of the above categories the employer must have documentation based on quantity or quality of production and the employer can also make this decision based on results of a professionally developed ability test, which cannot be used to discriminate (EEOC, 1997). If an employee feels they have been let go for an unjust reason they can file a formal

This exception allows employees to file lawsuits if they sensed they were terminated unfairly (Doyle A. 2016).

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

In Wayne Roberts and John Bullen’s A Heritage of Hope and Struggle: Workers, Unions and Politics of Canada 1930-1982, Roberts and Bullen’s outline the struggles and hardships Canadians endure post WWII on their path to prosperity with their employers. The journey begins late 1940s; conflicts emerge regarding union security which results in strikes, the 1945 Ford Windsor strike occurs as the organization’s employees demand the stability of the union. In an attempt to resolve the issues, Justice Ivan Rand urges a formula to “check-off dues” from employee paycheques to invest in the union, regarding finances and its activities. The fifties include the creation of the Canadian Labor Congress 1956 and the New Democratic Party. The sixties introduce

The issue of retaliatory discharge is common in the labor law area. These claims are made by disgruntled former employees whom feel as if they were in justly terminated from their previous job. However, the power of authority is sometimes abuse by those in their position. If someone’s believes they have been wrongly terminated they must be able to defend their claim with the following minutes of pertinent meeting, any written reports, typed, or handwritten, personal file and other portent information which will defend their claim. Having fellow employees and supervisors and their departmental policies and procedures. An employment disclaimer does not give the employer the right to terminated at will. The California Supreme Court prohibits their

The first matter to address is who is entitled to protection from wrongful dismissal under Canadian

Consideration for economic context is essential for work and learning. Companies, such as public, not for profit, privately operated/owned etc., have the ability to move unaccounted for resources across borders, attain cheap labour by outsourcing and create off-shore accounts to avoid taxes all of which impact work and learning. The Canadian economy is one derived of many variables. Employers creating workplaces by outsourcing their labour, moving resources that are unaccounted for or by creating accounts to avoid taxes are in business to have the lowest expenses and the most profit. These employers are prepared to do what it takes at whatever cost. The community in which I live consisted of several factories. These factories operated for many years employing many people in this community. Over the last 15 years most of these factories shut down and relocated to various other countries, obtaining cheap labour and new ways of distribution, leaving

Based on facts and legal laws, the judge can look over the evidence and rules and make a decision. The employment-at-will doctrine clearly states that the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason. There are many exceptions to the employment-at-will

The essence of the public-policy exception is that an employee will have a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge if the discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Claims for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception have included termination of employees for: (1) refusal to participate in illegal activity, (2) the employee's refusal to forsake the performance of an important public duty or obligation, (3) the employee's refusal to forego the exercise of a job-related legal right or privilege, (4) the employee's "whistleblowing" activity or other

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

An unjust dismissal is defined as the removal of an employee without a fair and genuine reason. Under NZ legislation, it is recognized as an act where an employee finds themselves “removed” unfairly. It is also known as a wrongful dismissal where there is a breach of agreement, and

I urge Saudis and non-Saudis to file lawsuits when they get fired without a cause during a probation period because it’s your responsibility to protect your reputation, family’s name. It is also your responsibility to protect yourself and your family.

Key legislation includes the Employment Rights Act 1996 is primarily concerned with employee rights including fair dismissal, unfair dismissal and redundancy. A dismissal can be ‘fair’ provided the employer has given one of the five specific reasons:

• fair dismissal can enhance the company’s image- use of progressive discipline, resulting in just cause termination can be fair.

Public industries and private industries hire individuals in a similar fashion; however, there is a stark difference between them when it comes to letting an individual go from the company. Interestingly, a public company in most states can fire an individual for any reason or even no reason at all; contradictory to this, a public company must have a valid reason to let an employee go (Aamodt, 2015). While it may seem strange that a public company can hire just about anyone it wishes to, it can’t in turn let them go if it wishes to. Adequate rational and just reasoning are what public companies must have in order to fire an individual; consequently, nothing prevents a person from quitting a job with little or no notice given. The protection is primarily geared towards the worker to prevent him or her from an unexpected job loss; regrettably, there is no protection for the company should the individual leave with no notice at all.