Ms. Kayte Clark, the Vice President for Danskin Inc - Case Study Example

? In this particular case, it can be d that Ms. Kayte Clark, the Vice President for “Danskin Inc” is unceremoniously terminated from her employment for granting permission to the union representatives to the company. This does not go down well with the CEO and Board though she tries to explain that the law does not allow her to discourage or intimidate employees to keep any union from addressing employees. However, she is legally blind and her disability issues seem to have grown in the company over the years since she could not be promoted to a higher position by virtue of her blindness. To a greater extent, the decision she makes can be regarded as a scapegoat to get rid of her since there is enough evidence to show that she is no longer liked in the company. As such, this essay seeks to critically evaluate the law that applies federally under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) as well as ERISA. The essay also seeks to outline the elements she must prove for a prima facie case in each area in question. Ms. Clark is now 53 years which entails that she is protected by the ADEA which stipulates that employees over 40 years must not be discriminated against with regards to aspects such as promotion, employment termination as well as benefits. Under this legislation, the employees are entitled to get their benefits regardless of their age or other physical attributes. The employee’s prima facie case treatment is that of disparate treatment. In this case, there is every reason for Ms. Clark to prove age discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment through the use of Title VII case set in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green which was adopted in the ADEA. According to the provisions of 20 U.S.C ? 623, the employee must prove the four elements going to be discussed below in a bid to persuade the court that she can lay a claim for age discrimination as provided by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (Moram, 492). First and foremost, the employee must prove that she is a member of the protected class. In order to satisfy the requirement for this prima facie case, there is need for the employee to prove that she is over 40 years old. As noted in the case, Ms. Clark is 53 which means that she satisfies this requirement. Conditions surrounding the termination of her employment posit to the effect that she has not been treated fairly given that a lenient or lighter decision could have been taken. As seen in the case study, there are other factors such as her disability which have contributed to the kind of treatment she is exposed to in the organisation. In the spirit of fairness, the decision she makes does not warranty termination of employment but she could have been reprimanded only whereby an agreement will be reached between the parties concerned. Secondly, Ms. Clark should prove that the decision made by the employer has adversely affected her employment. Termination of employment means that she is rendered jobless as a result of the decision by the employer to fire her due to the fact that she allows the union representatives to the company. According to her, the law stipulates that decisions can be made regarding such actions though the Board of Directors disagreed with her. In other words, it can be noted that they have another vendetta against her which is not directly related to decision she made which is considered as poor judgment. The glaring truth is that Ms. Clark’s blindness is a cause for concern hence spirited efforts are made to fire her from the company. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, no employer is allowed to ill treat an employee on the basis of her physical attributes. The unprecedented decision by the employer has negatively impacted on Ms. Clark welfare hence she is liable to claim for damages or to be reinstated to her position with full benefits. The third requirement suggests that the employee must prove that he or she is qualified for the position. A close analysis of the case shows that Ms. Clark has good looks and enthusiasm for the position given that she is respected by all the employees in the organisation. This entails that she is qualified for the position as reflected by the good leadership qualities she displays. In the first instance, when she was hired to the company this shows that she satisfied the requirements of the employer and is qualified for the position. The major issue in this case is not about qualifications but her blindness which does not go down well with senior management in the organisation. Besides the decision she makes regarding the union in the company, it can be noted that her performance is not poor since she conforms to the dictates of her job requirements. Against this background, she can persuade the courts to consider a claim against the employer. The fourth aspect that needs to be proved by Ms. Clark is that she must prove that she has been treated in a dissimilar way compared to the other employees. The Supreme Court held that in O’Connor v Consolidated Coin Caterers, 116 S, Ct. 1307 (1996) that the plaintiff can state a claim if he or she is replaced by someone who is younger than 40 years. However, in this particular case, this requirement does not apply to the case of Ms. Clark since she is not replaced by someone who is younger than her. The issue is that she has been discharged after being offered a once off retirement package of which she did not respond to the written offer. In the event that she has been replaced by someone who is younger, it could be possible for her to persuade the courts to lay a claim for unfair treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Signed waivers can also be used to determine a severance agreement between the employer and the employee. A good example can be drawn from Oubre vs Entergy Operations, Inc. 118 S. Ct. 838 (1998). According to Moram (508), Dolores Oubre received a poor performance rating and is given the option to improve her performance during the coming year or accepting a voluntary agreement for her severance of which she did and signed it. The agreement stated that she agreed to waive any claims against the employer and she received her six installment payments over the period of four months. When she later filed a lawsuit against the employer, the lower court agreed that Oubre had ratified the defective release by failing to return all the monies she had received. However, the ADEA was amended in 1990 and it posits to the effect that an employee might not waive any right or claim unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. This is a good example which illustrates the provisions of the law with regards to waivers signed between the employer and the employee. Under the new provisions of the ADEA, an employee might not be required to return the moneys offered before depending on the stipulations of the waiver agreement between the two parties involved. In this particular case, it can be noted that Ms. Clark did not sign any waiver with the employer hence may not be entitled to return any money. Under the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it can be noted that Ms. Clark fulfilled the provisions of ADEA given that she is member of protected class over 40 years and the decision by the employer has adversely affected her employment. She is also qualified for the position which makes it imperative for the courts to take into consideration these elements. In as far as fairness and justice are concerned with regards to the provisions of the ADEA, Ms. Clark satisfies the requirements for a prima facie case in each area raised above. As such, the judgment must be favorable to Ms. Clark given that she is unceremoniously discharged from her employment on the basis of physical ability. Her blindness is an aspect of concern given that her prospects of getting promotion are blocked by the senior management. In this case, she must claim for unfair dismissal from work and she must be reinstated to her position given that she did not sign the retirement package that was offered to her. In this particular case, there is no consent which entails that the employer is liable to reinstate her given that she is also not given notice on time and she will also be entitled to get all the benefits. Besides the ADEA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is another law that can be applied to the case involving Ms. Clark. Moram (509) posits to the effect that this law compels the employees to stick to the labour laws in respect to pensions and benefits. Normally, an employee is entitled to get the benefits if he or she is offered a package. However, in this particular case, it can be noted that the package does not cover normal retirement benefits, insurance coverage, payment of her social security until age 59, or offer her any “buy-out funds.” As such, she does not respond to the offer written to her and is terminated two weeks later. Ms. Clark is entitled to get her benefits and related rewards that are commensurate with her position. Under normal circumstances, a package is agreed between the employee and the employer of which this is not the case. She can approach the courts to lay a claim for damages as well as benefits from the employer since she is entitled to do this. Over and above, it can be noted that Ms. Clark is dismissed unexpectedly from her position as a result of the decision she makes to give permission to the union representatives to enter the company premises. This triggered a long standing plot to sideline her by virtue of her blindness. As discussed above, Ms. Clark satisfies all the requirements stipulated under the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which entitles her to persuade the courts to lay a claim against her employers. On the other hand, she is also protected by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which entitles her to get all her benefits from the employer since they did not reach an agreement on the benefit package. This must be agreed and signed by both the employer as well as the employee. Sources Moram, John Jude. Employment Law, New Challenges in the business environment. 4th Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Print. Oubre vs Entergy Operations, Inc. 118 S. Ct. 838 (1998) Read More