Employment Law - Problem Question - Essay Example

In the first count, Diana, a waitress who has just had a baby, is anxious about how she will manage her baby care and her work so as to plan her schedules. She approaches Christian who dismisses her that he is not involved in her issues and that she will have to cope with her current schedule at work. She has worked at the firm for three years. The second count involves Essie who has been working in the firm for the past two years. She has not been in good terms with Christian because of his continuous jock over Essie’s driving skills.

She has never liked the jokes, has made this clear to Christian, and has asked him to stop. Christian however continues to make the joke. A statement that Essie ‘might kill someone one day due to her incompetence’ makes her angry and she leaves her job. In the third count, Fred, who has been working with Christian for 10 years, is approaching 65 years. He would like to work beyond the retirement age as he believes that he is still competent but Fred believes that it is not safe to carry plates past 65 years and recommending that Fred leaves at 65 years.

Rules One of the applicable rules in the case is the right of a woman to a flexible schedule after maternity leave. This is stipulated in the employment rights act of the year 1996 that allows the employee to apply for such varied conditions. For an employee to qualify for such rights as stipulated by the act, he or she must have worked for the employer for a period of two years and two months. There must also be the need for such change in schedule that must be primarily parental. A parent must for example be seeking the flexibility due to responsibility over a child who is younger than six years or an abnormal minor.

Unless the employer can sight rational commercial arguments against such reschedules, the employee remains entitled to an agreed upon terms that remains binding (Chandler, 2003, p. 310). Another applicable principle in the case is the dismissal of an employee. This, subject to the age discrimination principles of the employment rights act, can be observed from two perspectives; if the termination is done before retirement age and if the termination is done after the employee’s retirement age.

Though the act provides that an employer have the right to dismiss an employee after the retirement age is attained, there should be an agreement between the parties over the termination agreement. This means that the employer should notify the employee of the intention to terminate the employment contact and the termination is only legal if effected after and not on or before the retirement date (Sargeant, 2006, p. 200, 201). Harassment is another applicable rule of law to the case. Harassments at the workplace include all forms of advances that are not welcomed by the recipient.

Muir defines harassment from two perspectives, “quid pro quod claims and hostile environment claims” (Muir, 2003, p. 104). Quid pro quo refers to those advancements that made with promise of rewards to the recipient, such as demand for sexual relations in exchange of promotion or an employment opportunity. Hostility in the working environment on the other hand refers to actions that are not acceptable to the recipient but are initiated by other parties at the workplace. Such an action may be “discriminatory that it affects job performance, or is intimidating, hostile, or offensive”