Violations under American Disability Act - Case Study Example

[Manager] Employment Law 24 November CASE LAW As a matter of right, Miss Clark can file a complaint against her employer before the federal courts, based on the ground of violations under American Disability Act (ADA), The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (ADEA), later replaced by Older Worker Benefits Package Act (OWPBA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, for the grave and intentional acts tainted with evident bad faith committed by her employer against her person. The foregoing violations shall be discussed individually. First, the American Disability Act (ADA) “applies to disabilities that affect a major life activity, and those areas of coverage are vision, mental and motor skills, ability to care for one’s self and commute to employment”. In the case of Miss Clark, the fact that she is blind has been known to the company for a long time, as she holds the Vice-President position. Even though she is suffering from visual impairment, it did not prevent her from fulfilling her duties and responsibilities as the Vice-President of the company. However, due to her physical disability, the company refused to promote her to the position of Senior Vice-President because they think that she is not capable enough to carry-out the functions of an SVP. In spite of this physical defect, she has remained loyal to the company and worked for them in several years. Without a doubt, there is a clear violation of the law when the employer prevented the career advancement of Miss Clark by denying her of the position of the Senior Vice-President. It bears stressing that she has surpassed the qualifications for the position of the SVP as seen in her work performance, professionalism and competencies in the execution of her duties and responsibilities in the company. This has been further bolstered by the good working relationship she shares with her colleagues and subordinates. To illustrate the reasonableness of her promotion, ADA provides steps or guidelines for the victim-employee to prove disability discrimination in order to file a valid claim against the employer. The following requisites are: First: A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; Second: A record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such impairment; and Third: Accordingly, to fall within this definition, one must have an actual disability, have a record of disability or be regarded of having one. Verily, in the light of the justifications provided by law, Miss Clark has a valid cause of action against her employer as the above requisites have been complied with and she can file a claim against her employer. The employers must take judicial of the fact that both the state laws and the federal laws give protection to employees who have been victims of discrimination because of a disability, and entitles them to file claims for damages. This is pursuant to the principle of “disparate treatment enunciated in the case of Raytheon Vs. Hernandez (540 U.S. 44 (2003) 298 F.3d 1030), where the Supreme Court held that in addition that disparate impact claims are also available to workers based on facially neutral policies that impact qualified individuals with disabilities differently than workers without disabilities”. Another glaring violation committed by her employer is against the provisions of “The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. The law was enacted to “protect the employees’ justified expectation of receiving the benefits their employers promise them, and ensures that employees will not be left empty-handed once employers have guaranteed them certain benefits upon retirement” (Bennet-Alexander and Hartman 742). Under ERISA, Miss Clark has a legal standing to sue her employer for illegally termination when she was forced to resign and accept diminished retirement benefit package being offered by the company, which she later on refused for violations under the law. Miss Clark was in good faith when she entertained a dialogue with a Union which was about to be formed and no intention to put the company at risk because the act of granting the request of the labor union to explain the concept of a union and the related benefits due to the employees is not unlawful. Miss Clark’s case verily falls under ERISA, at 53 years of age, she has a legal basis to charge her employer when she was illegally terminated for baseless grounds. It is noteworthy to highlight under the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA (29 U.S.C. Section151), “Employees or workers have the right to self-organization, to for, join, assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing”. All employees have the right to organize and form unions to negotiate better terms in the employment contract with their employers. Hence, Miss Clark was not in violation of any company policy when she agreed to set a meeting with the soon-to-be union members. Miss Clark has posed a valid contention to the company that she explained that she cannot discourage, use force and intimidation to dissuade the employees to form or join the union. In the event that an employee or worker chooses to form or join a union, such employee shall enjoy a bargaining power, rather than if such individual employee dealt with his employer on their own. It is common knowledge under labor laws that a union can get their member-employees better pay, benefits and working conditions through grievance procedures and find practical and easy solutions to resolve disputes in the work environment. In the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) it was ruled that either employees in or reasonably expected to be in, currently covered employment or former employees who have a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment or who have a colorable claim to a vested benefit. Miss Clark can file this claim in a federal or state court because both courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction over these cases. Third, Miss Clark was also a victim of ADEA. This is covered under Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (ADEA) which promotes the employment of older people based on their ability, rather than age and prohibits arbitrary age discrimination in employment” (Bennet-Alexander and Hartman, 490). In case of Grefenhain Vs. Pabst Brewing Company (860 F.2d 834, 1988), the Supreme Court held: “Retention of senior employees, who can be replaced by younger, lower-paid people frequently competes with other values, such as profits or conceptions of economic efficiency. The ADEA represents a choice among these values. It stands for the proposition that is a better country for its willingness to pay the costs of treating old people fairly” (Bennet-Alexander and Hartman, 490). To illustrate the reasonableness of Miss Clark’s promotion, ADEA provides a four steps or guidelines for the victim-employee in order to file a valid claim against an employer. The following requisites must concur: First: That the employee is a member of a protected class; Second: That the employee is otherwise qualified for the position; Third: That the employee is terminated or refused employment; and Fourth: That an adverse employment decision made in regard to age, or was replaced by a younger worker. Therefore, this makes Miss Clark qualified to claim under ADEA for the unfair treatment extended to her by her employer. This principle was highlighted in the case of McDonell Douglas Corp. Vs. Green, (411 U.S. 792, 1993), where “Green filed a suit against Douglas for failure to hire him based on race discrimination under Title VII” when the court devised a three-part test in ‘failure to hire’ case: 1. The plaintiff has the burden to present the prima facie case of discrimination; 2. Once prima facie case has been established by plaintiff, the burden of proof is shifted to the employer to show a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for applicant’s rejection; and 3. If employer shows non-discriminatory reasons for rejection, the burden of proof is shifted to the plaintiff”. “Disparate treatment is the Title VII theory used in cases of individual discrimination. The employee bringing the suit alleges that the defendant-employer treats the employee differently than other similarly situated. Further, the employee alleges that the reason for the difference is the employees’ race, religion, gender, color or national origin. It is also considered intentional discrimination although the plaintiff did not actually know that the unlawful discrimination is the reason for the indifference” (Bennet-Alexander and Hartman 88). Applying this case, it can be concluded that the case of Miss Clark falls within the purview of this case when she was not promoted for the SVP position because of her physical defect of permanent blindness. Hence, this move of the employer is equitable to a discriminatory act defined under the law under the law. On the other hand, in the case of Oubre Vs. Entergy Operations, Inc. (522 U.S. 422, 1988), the Supreme Court ruled that: “an employee who is a victim of a discrimination claim under the Older Worker Benefits Package Act (OWPBA) does not release the employer from liability when the procedures under the law are not strictly followed in the early retirement plans given to the employees”. The Court further held that the employee is given a period of time which is normally at least two weeks to review the program and should request the assistance of an attorney in order to fully comprehend the program being offered by employer and is given another seven (7) days to make a final decision whether to accept or reject the plan. Fourth, the “Older Worker Benefits Package Act” (OWPBA) is an amendment of ADEA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 is suppletory in nature with this law. The amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 has set a ceiling on the amounts of compensatory and punitive damages that can be awarded to employee victims who suffered abuses from their employers. “The basis of the limitation shall be based on the number of people employed in a company: 1. The employers with 15-100 employees shall grant $50,000 to the victim; 2. For employers with 101-200 employees, the amount is fixed at $100,000; 3. For employers with 201-500 employees, the amount is fixed at $200,000; and 4. For employers with more than 500 employees, the amount is fixed at $300,000” (Bennet-Alexander and Hartman 88). Thus, it is a sound legal advice to inform Miss Clark to take legal action against employer on the of basis discrimination committed by her employer and to file it before the federal courts, for violations under ADA, ERISA, ADEA, OWPBA and the Civil Rights. She is also entitled under the law to file for punitive and compensatory damages for acts done by the employer against her person. Works Cited: Bennet-Alexander, Dawn B. and Laura P. Hartman, Employment Law for Business, Fifth Edition. USA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print. Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) Grefenhain Vs. Pabst Brewing Company 860 F.2d 834 (1988) National Labor Relations Act or NLRA (29 U.S.C. Section 151) Older Worker Benefits Package Act (OWPBA) Oubre Vs. Entergy Operations, Inc. (522 U.S. 422, 1988) Raytheon Vs Hernandez, (02-749) 540 U.S. 44 (2003) 298 F.3d 1030 Read More