Employment Law Protects all Employees from Being Discriminated by Their Employers - Assignment Example

Employment law QUESTION A Discrimination of any type is illegal in most nations as per the employment lay. Employment law protects all employees from being discriminated by their employers. In case of any incident of discrimination, the employee can sue the company for the act. In this context, Ms Riyadh feels that her employer has discriminated against her in the work place. ABC of a promotion promised Ms Riyadh on condition that she works hard, and achieves outstanding performance. Ms Riyadh has attained exemplified level in her work as an accountant in ABC. She has received three national awards. The male employees who joined ABC after Ms Riyadh have received promotions. However, Ms Riyadh is still working at the same position despite her smart work. In this case, Ms Riyadh can claim the practice of gender discrimination by her employer. Despite her good work to the extent of receiving three national awards, she has not been promoted. Her male counterparts have received three to four promotions within the time Ms Riyadh have worked for ABC. It is also evident that few women hold higher positions compared to their male counterparts (Duddington, 2007). Ms Riyadh can also claim presence of religious discrimination in her work place. Her employer says that Ms Riyadh is too religious to hold a higher position within the company. Ms Riyadh knows that in the employment act, an employer is not supposed to discriminate against any employee based on the employee’s religion. All employees should get equal chances for promotions. In this case, Ms Riyadh will claim that her employer has not been fair in considering her for promotion based on her strong religious beliefs (Herch, 2007). ABC can defend itself that it will endure business hardship in the process of considering to accommodate Ms Riyadh’s complains. Given the nature of the business in the advertisement industry, it will be hard to place Ms Riyadh in a higher position in the company. Advertisement industry requires a great deal of preventability, socializing and a lot of fraternizing. Ms Riyadh’s religion does not allow her to adopt this ideal conduct necessary for good business processes in advertisement. Therefore, considering Riyadh’s claim will affect ABC business. On the other hand, ABC might defend itself that there was no legally enforceable agreement that Ms Riyadh’s promotion was an obligation to the company. The promise during the hiring time served to motivate Ms Riyadh into working hard. Otherwise, there was no contract between the employer, which in this case is ABC, and Ms Riyadh, the employee. Therefore, ABC is under no obligation of promoting Ms Riyadh. Both the defences will allow ABC to win the case and no benefits will be paid to the complainant (Herch, 2007, P.56). QUESTION B (1) In employment law, there is the act protecting special groups from workplace discrimination. These special groups include race, gender, and disability among others. It will be termed illegal for an employer to discriminate against a competent employee based on the employee’s disability. The law does not allow the employer to discriminate against disable employees in every process of the work, including the training of employees (Duddington, 2007). Employers have the obligation of providing accommodation where necessary to the disable employees. Accommodation the context of disability discrimination is the provision of logistical assistance to the victim employees. In our case, the employer was supposed to provide interpreter to the deaf employees during the video training period (Duddington, 2007). The claim for the employees will be that the employer discriminated against them on the grounds of their disability. The defence for the employer is that the employees did not require any accommodation because the videos were enough to demonstrate the concepts of the safety process of handling mails. In addition, the employees did not make the request to have an interpreter during the training. Even if the employees had placed their request, the employer would not have considered it because it is not reasonable. The video is enough to communicate the concepts of the training. For the employees to win the case, their claim has to have a reasonable request of the accommodation, which in this case was not reasonable. Therefore, the employees will lose the case (Duddington, 2007). QUESTIOIN B (2) In the law governing the termination of employment, the employer can only dismiss an employee on justifiable grounds only. There are policies and guidelines to follow before firing a worker. In this case, Bob is a regular absentee and a late comer. This time, his reason of arriving to work late is that his car broke down. The correct procedure before firing Bob is to investigate the validity of his claim. Saturn did not make any effort of looking into Bob’s matter. Saturn had already blacklisted Bob for absenteeism and tardiness. They took the later excuse as Bob’s habit for his lateness (Appleby, 2008, P.200). In this case, Bob will claim that there was no justifiable reason for his dismissal from work because enough investigation was not done on the validity of his lateness to work. The evidence and testimony provided by the parties was not enough to justify the firing of Bob. Saturn will be obliged to reinstate Bob and pay him for any loss of benefits during the period he was off duty. Saturn will have no reasonable defence for its action because the reason for firing the employee is not justifiable. Therefore, the court will not grant Saturn’s request but in turn, it will call form the implementation of the arbitration. QUESTION B (3) In employment law, there should not be any discrimination of employees based on their expected disability during the hiring process. All qualified employees should be treated fairly despite their expected incapacities. In this case, the employer is supposed to consider hiring Martha on grounds that she is qualified. The act of neglecting Martha because of her expected incapacity constitutes disability discrimination. The hiring process for that supermarket will be termed as unfair and discriminatory (Duddington, 2007, P.342). In court, the Supermarket will defend its act of discrimination by saying that considering Martha for the job will face hardship during the time of her absence from work. This will mean additional costs for the company in hiring another temporary worker to replace Martha during the surgery. After the surgery, it is clear that, Martha will not be able to meet the expectations of performing the job. This will mean an undue hardship for the supermarket in conducting its business. Since the supermarket is not obliged to employing Martha, they can avoid the hitch that would have been caused by Martha’s incapacity. In this case, Martha does not have a valid claim to win the case because even if the supermarket is discriminatory, the nature of the job does not allow them to consider Martha. QUESTION B (4) Employment law does not allow workplace discrimination based on race or ethnicity. All employees should receive equal treatment irrespective of an employee’s ethnic background. Abuses in office or in a workplace based on ethnic ground are unlawful. In case of any racial discrimination, the employee can sue the employer for damages that arose from the discrimination. Firing of an employee based on his/her race or religion constitutes discrimination, which can be sorted out in court (Mitchell, 2006). In the case of Mohammad, it is evident that Mohammad’s colleague and his manager were discriminating him based on his ethic origin. This is a direct case of racial or ethnic discrimination. Mohammad can sue the fast food restaurant for unjustifiable termination of his job based on his ethnicity. The court will listen to the fast-foods restaurant’s testimony concerning the firing of Mohammad. They will then judge if the reason for firing his is justifiable. Based on the earlier evidence of racial discrimination in the restaurant as witnessed by Mohammad when he was an employee there, the case will be in favour of Mohammad. The fast-food restaurant’s management will have to reinstate Mohammad back to his job and pay him the appropriate damages (Appleby, 2008). QUESTION B (5) Business law prohibits sexual harassment of every kind. This area has been receiving heavy attention in the recent past. An employee is not supposed to experience any form of sexual harassment from the colloquies, the managers or even the customers. Sexual harassment can be in the form of language or actions. If an employee is harassed sexually, he/she is entitled to suing the harasser in the court of law. The employee has a right of protection from any form of sexual harassment by his/her employer (Gillian & Deakin, 2009 p.125). In the case of Patsy, Simon, who is the customer, harasses Patsy sexually. It is evident that Simon is making the comments without Patsy’s willingness to hear the comments. Since every employee has a right of protection from any form of sexual harassment by the employer, Patsy has a valid claim against Tom’s bar in the court of law (Mitchell, 2006 P.38). Tom has failed to protect Patsy from the sexual harassment by not considering g Patsy’s request of exemption from the duty of attending Simon. Therefore, Patsy can sue the Iris pub for not protecting her from sexual harassment from the customer. References Appleby, G.S. (2008). Harassment and Discrimination: And Other Workplace Landmines. California: Entrepreneur Press. Duddington, J. (2007). Employment Law. New York: Pearson Longman. Gillian, S. M. & Deakin, F.S. (2009). Labour law. Berlin: Hart Pub. Herch, J. (2007). Sex Discrimination in the Labor Market. Sydney: Now Publishers Inc. Mitchell, Young. (2006). Racial Discrimination. New York: Greenhaven Press. Sargeant, M. & Lewis, D. (2001). Employment law. New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Read More