Business legal issues. Brandon Burton, Leslie Gaines, Eric Defrancisco, David Butler, Sanjeev Dube - Essay Example

?Response to the post Brandon Burton  Brandon makes a good case for the need of the company to train its staff in the proper conduct ofan interview. There are concerns which, because of their implications and the requirements of the law, are improper and deemed indicative of the company’s discrimination of individuals on the basis of their disability, gender, race, and so forth. In this case, the mention of his disability as a concern may be construed as prejudice against the physically disabled as a class. The discrimination is made more apparent by the fact that the position being applied for is a managerial one, a job that requires more of mental skills rather than physical capabilities. There may be instances, however, when it is proper to express concern that physical disability may get in the way of the discharge of the duties of the position. When the job requires physical dexterity and the application of manual skills, then clearly the situation of a paraplegic will be a hindrance to the discharge of the function. There are many such instances when the specification of physical attributes for a particular job is accepted as normal and regular, such as requiring airplane attendants to be of a certain minimum height to be able to reach overhead baggage compartments, or ballet dancers to be male to fulfill a particular dance role. Ethnicity or racial origins may sometimes be necessary for assignment in certain parts of the world, to reduce the threat of personal risk to the individual, or to increase the company’s acceptance in that culture. Common sense will normally point out that physical ability, gender, age, race or ethnicity will be necessary considerations in certain circumstances. Even though the law provides that “reasonable accommodation” be made for the specific situation of the disabled employee, where the accommodation necessary is no longer within reasonable means so as to “impose undue hardship on the operation of the business”, then the employer may decide on the basis of the disability (Sec. 12112 (5) (A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990). References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm Warren & Siurek, LLP. (2012). “Dallas company sued for disability discrimination.” Retrieved from: http://www.houstonemploymentlawattorney.com/2012/06/dallas-company-sued-for-disability-discrimination.shtml Response to the post of Student 2: Leslie Gaines Reading through the original report of the case, it is mentioned that the company believes the claims to be baseless, “but will investigate them thoroughly.” What is happening in this case, or at least what the company wants to portray, is that the assignment of non-whites to lower-paid “back of the house duties” (if it is true) is the decision of the local branch management and is not a policy of top management. In either case, the company has a duty of restitution to the non-whites, not only in monetary terms, but in terms of restoring their dignity and self-esteem. Then if indeed the branch management is culpable, then they should be dealt with by the top executive, together with articulation of a clear statement against discriminating practices (Daft & Marcic, 2012). It is clear that the company does not claim that the restaurant is trying to maintain a high-end image so it does not assign non-Caucasians as servers; it is the plaintiffs who allege this (Wildeboer, 2012). Had this been the defense of the firm – that it seeks to maintain an image – then it would be tantamount to an admission, and the force of the law should be brought to bear upon it for racial discrimination. Nor does the report say the 26 plaintiffs were qualified. If they are, the firm should be held accountable by the principle of command responsibility. However, it must first be proven that there are and have been absolutely no non-white servers, and that all non-whites, despite being qualified for the front-end, are summarily assigned to the back-end duties. Even if 26 employees felt aggrieved by this national chain, if the firm employed hundreds of workers and assigned a few non-whites as servers, then discrimination on the basis of the firm wishing to maintain a high-end image will be debunked. The presence of even one non-white server would have been enough to mar the “image” of the firm as alleged, thus if even a scant few of colored servers are present, then the alleged motive of the firm to maintain its image by barring colored servers appears unfounded. References: Daft, R. L. & Marcic, D. (2013) Understanding Management. Mson, OH: South-Western CENGAGE Learning. Wildeboer, R. (2012) “Red Lobster/Olive Garden company sued for discrimination.” WBEZ 91.5. January 31, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.wbez.org/story/red-lobsterolive-garden-company-sued-discrimination-96009 Response to the post of Student 3: Eric Defrancisco Clearly in this case, the employer was discriminatory against the plaintiff on the basis of religious beliefs or (as the Meyers Law Firm [2012] put it) lack of it. From the interview itself, where the company asked the plaintiff about his religious persuasions, to the company practice of mandating attendance in Bible study sessions among its employees, religious discrimination is clearly evident. The position applied for does not require the fulfillment of faith-based duties, therefore religious faith should not be a pre-condition to employment for this job. The post is right in commenting that working off the clock is against the law; it requires of the worker to regularly perform duties which he is, technically, not paid for, being outside the regular work hours and without the benefit of overtime pay. The EEOC is justified in seeking injunctive relief and a court order prohibiting the company, Voss Electric, from discriminatory practices against religious beliefs or absence thereof, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. EEOC, 2012). The Civil Rights Act protects a person to be secure not only against prejudice against his religion, but also prejudice where he does not have a religion. It also imposes upon employees the obligation not only to tolerate the employee in the practice of his religious beliefs, but to make special provisions for the employee in the observance of this belief, for as long as the accommodation does not place “significant burden” on the company. Voss Electric Company is “one of the nation’s leading suppliers of specialized lighting products, with a presence in 16 cities around the United States. It “appears to have a corporate culture that requires employees adhere to certain religious beliefs that have absolutely no bearing on business of the selling lighting products” (U.S. EEOC, 2012). This is the very definition of religious discrimination, and the court order on Voss Electric to observe the mandate on diversity will go a long way in protecting Voss employees and applicants throughout the country. References: The Meyers Law Firm, LC (2012) “Christian company sued for religious discrimination.” June 20, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.meyerslaw.com/news/discrimination-in-the-workplace/christian-company-sued-for-religious-discrimination/ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2012) “EEOC Sues Voss Lighting for Religious Discrimination.” June 12, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-12-12.cfm Response to the post of Student 4: David Butler The case of William Wise, 61, after 11 years of service, appears to be on of dismissal motivated by discrimination as to his age, because he was immediately replaced by an applicant in his twenties, by his employer Dell, Inc. The facts of the case, however, allow for another explanation – that of ineffectiveness in discharging the responsibilities of his job. The company claims that Wise had failed to achieve his sales quota for 18 consecutive months, and did not follow his supervisors’ suggestions to help him improve in his performance. Upon the resolution of the case at the trial court, Wise was awarded $668,000 in damages by the court, which the Company has appealed (Calnan, 2011). Observers thought that Dell would simply pay-off the judgment, or would have even settled before judgment was reached; however, it is not surprising that Dell wants this case resolved in its favor. It appears that Dell’s practice has been more prevalent than the alleged facts (i.e., of ineptitude on Wise’s part) appears to suggest. Not too long after this decision, Dell was the respondent in another case of another dismissed and replaced employee, Andrew Surtes (Calnan, 2012). At first, I was persuaded that an employee who has had a poor track record for 18 months could be at fault for his own dismissal in this case, but in retrospect, Wise has been with the firm for 11 years, and it is unlikely that he would be incompetent at his job after all that time. The two cases combined – and possibly others which previously or may potentially be filed – lend credence to the court’s judgment. I believe that it is the company which is guilty of discriminatory practices, and age is certainly an issue in the case of computer firms such as Dell. This case just shows that when a company has decided to remove an employee from its payroll, management will go to great lengths to disguise their true intent behind the dismissal in order to avoid culpability under the law. References: Calnan, C. (2011) “Dell to appeal discrimination verdict” Austin Business Journal. October 21, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/print-edition/2011/10/21/dell-to-appeal-discrimination-verdict.html Calnan, C. (2012) “Dell sued for discrimination.” Austin Business Journal. January 13, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/print-edition/2012/01/13/dell-sued-for-discrimination.html?page=all Response to the post of Student 5: Sanjeev Dubey The issue in this case is whether Hooters, a bar and restaurant chain, is justified in hiring only female servers. Prima facie, Hooters is discriminating on the basis of gender because it refuses to hire men. However, anybody who knows the business understands that it has attained its prominent position in the business in the 20 years it has existed, because of its unique positioning in the industry. Hooters unique strategy targets a particular niche, that of 25-to 54-year-old males, who account for 70% of business (Helyar, 2003). There is legal backing for the gender exclusivity in the hiring policies of Hooters. A BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification defense) is applicable in cases of alleged discrimination according to age, sex, religion, or national origin, but NOT race. It allows discrimination where the protected class (in this case, gender) is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise” (Hyman, 2009). In the case of Hooters, the employment of female servers is necessary for the firm to project its image that caters to the adult male niche it seeks to serve. Hooters is not the first establishment which employed exclusively female servers; it should be recalled that Playboy preceded Hooters, with its distinctive Playboy Bunny costume. If it appears discriminatory and “male chauvinist” to pamper the male gender in this fashion, one need only look at the female counterpart of this business. Chippendales Male Revue is a dance troupe which is known to feature exclusively male erotic (i.e., striptease) dancers who are known for their distinctive costumes (i.e., bowtie and shirt cuffs on a bare upper body). Chippendales caters primarily to women audiences, and is now known worldwide for its Broadway-style shows. All these establishments are understood to exclusively hire servers of one gender, because their business rationale and strategy are built on the natural differences in the sexes. References: Helyar, J. (2003) “Hooters: A Case Study ‘This thing has incredible legs,’ an early investor said. Twenty years later, the restaurant chain has finally hit its stride.” Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/09/01/348187/index.htm Hyman, J. (2009) “Hooters Sued For Not Hiring Men.” Retrieved from http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2009/01/hooters-sued-for-not-hiring-men.html Read More