Employment Law: Bruce Fisher case
Bruce Fisher case
I would advise Fisher to sue the Northern Bell Phone Company for violating the Employment Act (ENDA) of 2009 on sexual discrimination and harassment. Sex discrimination involves unfavorable treatment of other persons due to their sex. Discrimination based on transgender identity is classified as discrimination by being a male or female. Transgender employees were victims of discrimination in their work area in the past two decades. Reports on termination, underemployment and employment are rampant among the transgender population.
The Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA) Act of 2009 banned discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation (Guerin, 2011). The law prohibits employers from firing employees based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, Bruce Fisher should sue his employer for violating the ENDA act and firing him. Violators of these acts of discrimination firing people and also not recruiting people can be fined up to $10,000 or may be imprisoned as a second conviction alternative. In the United States, almost all employees, especially in the government sectors, are entitled to the due process right. This right ensures that the employer cannot take away any employee’s property interest, freedom or suspend them without giving them a fair hearing process or notice
Johnny Carlton case
Whether a job applicant’s origin is from the Ukraine, Mexican, African or any other country, they have entitled employment opportunities just like any other person in the country. It is wrong to employ people based on their race, religion, region, and sex. Employment under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits national origin discrimination and covers employees with up to fifteen employees (Twomey, 2013).
Association with other ethnic origins, attendance or participation in schools associated with another origin or country should not hinder employment opportunities for people seeking employment. Johnny Carlton is covered by the Title VII act towards his right to get employed in another region despite his educational background. Carlton should contact EEOC to report this discrimination and violation of the Title VII act. Employers can also be held liable for any discrimination or victimization held by employees at their disposal.
Harvey Jameson case
For the case of Harvey Jameson, he can go ahead and sue the employer for firing him for violation of his right. This is an act of age discrimination towards the 66-year-old man. ADEA prohibits and protects employees who are over 40 years of being denied opportunities such as job promotion, employment, and other job-related benefits. Although the newly recruited employee is also in the category of over 40 years of age, this does not mean that the rights of the 66-year-old man will not be considered.
Termination of Harvey Jameson’s work is against the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) as this is a violation of age discrimination (Guerin, 2011). ADEA specifically prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees. If found to have violated this act, the employer will be liable to do the following; pay the employee all the compensation and wages lost as a result of the termination, taking action to remedy the discrimination for example returning the employee to their job, pay employer’s court fees as well as those of the attorney (Guerin, 2011).
Rita Hall case
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) states that for any employee that is sick or unwell are legible for a leave (Twomey, 2013). Employers ought to consider the health of their employees as an employee can file a case against the employer against discrimination and lack of sick leaves. A serious condition, for example, that of Rita Hall’s kidney failure that requires dialysis three times a week is considered a serious condition that one can be allowed time for leave. Employee benefits include sick leaves and any overtime work ought to be paid. A person that experiences discrimination by the employer must file a charge of violating her right has outlined in the EEOC.
Contrary, the bona fide occupational qualification refers to an attribute that employers consider when making decisions about who to employ (Twomey, 2013). This is a common practice on the basis of religion, sex, and origin. It has a very narrow exception to Title VII, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination. Title VII prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on religion, sex, race and national originality.
The act permits religious organizations to discriminate regarding employment decisions and perceives religion as the bona fide occupational qualification. An employee’s religious belief can be considered a bona fide occupational qualification if the organization is based on religious practices such as churches, mosques, temples. One cannot employ a Muslim to work in a church-related organization. A Catholic school may also consider hiring Catholic teachers despite the subjects to be taught not relating to the Catholic faith (Twomey, 2013). Other employment opportunities associated with religious bona fide occupational qualification include the priests, imams’ work and religious teachers and leaders employment.
The employers are supposed to learn the various factors and laws that are associated with employee discrimination to avoid getting themselves into such offenses. They should learn how to treat their employees with dignity and respect. The employees should also learn the various policies and laws to ensure that they do not fall victims of discriminations in their fields of work.
Guerin, L. (2011). Employment law: The essential HR desk reference. Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Twomey, D. P. (2013). Labor & Employment Law: Text and cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.