Recent legislation that helps to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 2616
Recent legislation that helps to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace
The impacts of antidiscrimination laws and cases have always affected many employers. Laws protecting employees from discrimination are statutory as opposed to common laws that viewed employment relationship as a private contract that deserve no protection of employees. The first federal registration that helped to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace was the equal pay act of 1963. This has been expanded through other acts such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, which forms the basis of protection laws and judicial decisions in matters concerning employment discrimination in the workplace (Jennings, 2018).
Background information
According to Jennings, (2018) before the recent federal anti-discrimination laws, a series of federal laws have existed to address specific issues of discrimination at detailed levels. For instance, in 1866, the Civil Right Acts of 1866 and 1870 was enacted to prohibit employers from discriminating employees based on race, color, permit lawsuits, national origin, or one's ethnicity. In 1963, another statue by the name Equal Pay Act required equal pay for the opposite sex for jobs substantially requiring similar skills and responsibility. In 1964, Civil Rights Acts was amended and outlawed employers from discriminating employees concerning race, color, national origin, and religion, and that applied to hire, payment, and terms of work, promotions, firing, as well as costs and recoverable attorney fees. In 1967, Age Discrimination, in Employment Act was enacted to protect employees aged 40 and older from discrimination based on age, mandatory retirement restrictions, permitted private lawsuits, costs, and recoverable attorney and costs fees. In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act was enacted, which expanded the enforcement power of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Another statue, Rehabilitation Act came into effect in 1973 to protect employees from discrimination based on handicaps. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1975 followed to protect the discrimination of employees based on pregnancy and childbearing. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted and prohibited employers from discriminating against employees based on disabilities. In 1991, the Civil Rights Act clarified disparate impact suit requirements, what “business necessity” meant, the term “job related”, and changed part of Supreme Court decisions. In the same year, the Glass Ceiling Act came into effect and created a commission to study barriers for women involved in management and decision-making posts. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 followed establishing 12 weeks of leave for family and medical reasons but without pay. In 2008, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act followed and prohibited employment discrimination based on generic information regarding applicants, and current or former employees. In 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act came into effect and brought adjustments of the recovery period for back wages to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission standards that existed before this act (Jennings, 2018).
Recent legislation enacted to protect employees from discrimination
Recently, within the last 10 years, some of the legislation enacted to protect employees from discrimination includes the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019
Affordable Care Act of 2010
The department of labor enforces this law from when it was first passed in 2010 to look into the needs of health coverage for employees. This law ensures that health insurance is a right for employees in medium and large-sized enterprises. It is now a requirement for the employer to share responsibility by making mandatory contributory health insurance pay for employees working in companies with at least 50 full-time workers. An employer failing to submit this mandatory payment pays a substantial penalty. A full-time employee is defined as an individual who works on average a minimum of 30 hours a week. Besides addressing health insurance coverage, it also addresses the costs of health care and preventive care. The federal-state enacted this law in two parts, which are the patient protection, and the affordable care act. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act signed this act into law on March 30, 2010 (Vertreace, 2010).
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019
This act establishes a whistleblower at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The term whistleblower refers to a person or a group of people that provide information about their employer for violation of this act. This may include but not limited to violation of the rules of the board, audit reports, or professional standards. If the board imposes monetary suctions because of such information, the board should also give the whistleblower an award that is at least 10% in total of the monetary sanctions imposed but not more than 30% (Baranova, Kadala, Kolesnikova, Kosytsia & Muzychuk, 2019).
The law prohibits the employer from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or discriminating against the whistleblower because of their lawful act within the employment terms. That applies in supplying the Board with the information per this subsection, testifying, or assisting the investigating officers in matters related to such information. Regarding confidentiality, the Board must not disclose such information the whistleblower provides in a manner that is expected to disclose the identity of the whistleblower unless it is a requirement by the defendant or the respondent (Baranova, Kadala, Kolesnikova, Kosytsia & Muzychuk, 2019).
When the federal legislation conflicts with the state
The doctrine of preemption that is founded on the Supremacy Clause dictates that Federal Law commandeer state law whether the laws conflict or not. In this regard, the federal court can command a state to stop certain conducts that conflict or interfere with federal law (Vertreace, 2010).
Employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine
Employment-at-will doctrine is an employment relationship that states that the period of employment is indefinite and either employer or employee may terminate the employment. If the employment relationship is at-will, the employment contract should typically expressly include it in the agreement. For instance, in Florida, with the existence of a valid employment contract an employee receives rights linked to the common law doctrine in case of wrongful discharge. In the event the parties did not sign such a contract, an employee is subject to employment-at-will, which is a common law doctrine (Hannay, Harcourt, & Lam, 2013).
Employment-at-will relationship gives the employer unrestricted control over termination of employment as well as other terms of employment. The employee on the other hand just enjoys the freedom to quit at will. So in this view, the employer who employs at will views the contract as a program that conceals common law rights that are unavailable to individuals employed at-will. At-will contract is difficult to enforce through courts because the courts mostly interpret contract language indicating specific terms of employment (Hannay, Harcourt, & Lam, 2013).
Exceptions to EAW doctrine
Even when the employment relationship is at-will, there are exceptions to why the court may regard termination wrongful. Nevertheless, such exceptions vary by state (Hannay, Harcourt, & Lam, 2013).
Exception due to public policy
The public exception policy prohibits employers from terminating an employee if the termination violates fundamental state public policy. An applicable example is the prohibition of the employer from terminating an employee for filing a compensation claim for injuries happening within their duty of employment. Similarly, most states prohibit employers to terminate an employee for refusing to violate a law upon request by the employer (Hannay, Harcourt, & Lam, 2013).
Exception due to implied contract
Implied contract exception acknowledges an expectation the employee may have concerning but not limited to indefinite employment in consideration to the behavior or conduct of the employer. Such an expectation may arise from a statement made by the employer, long-term culture of the employees receiving termination only for a cause, or if the employer asserted in the employee’s notebook that he would follow specific procedures before terminating employment (Hannay, Harcourt, & Lam, 2013).
Exception due to implied Covenant of Fair dealing
A state may recognize this covenant in the employment-at-will relationship and allow an exception. The exception bars employers from terminating employees in bad faith or allow malice to be the motivation behind the termination of an employee (Hannay, Harcourt, & Lam, 2013).
Case scenarios
In the case of Breda firing the worker who protested against discrimination of Asian American employees, the EAW doctrine would apply since the employment relationship is at-will. However, an exception concerning implied Covenant of good faith or fair dealing would apply in favor of the employee on the issues of discriminating against Asian Americans from fair promotion. If the concern of the worker was genuine, then firing such a worker may be interpreted to be in bad faith. There is also nothing wrong with the employee planning to form a union because the federal laws allow employees to form unions. The claim about how much the CEO earned and that the CEO was “out of touch” might however not enjoy any exception, as there is no contract about how much a worker should earn relative to the CEO.
In the second case involving Jason, and the secretary, it may be a smart decision to fire such an employee. While putting Right-to-life fliers in the employee, the break room is informative and in good faith, taking time to pray each day during the busiest time of the morning is jeopardy to the smooth flow of the organization. This is especially because the office of the secretary plays a significant role in the front office. While being a devout Christian and being prayerful is freedom of worship entitled to all it should not conflict with the running of the organization. The secretary should have a better plan for her prayer hours. It is assumed that Jason had warned Alice several times of this behavior. Alice’s case will not attract Exception due to public policy or any other exception since her case does not warrant any of the three exceptions for individuals employed at-will.
The decision to fire Lori is not smart because Jury duty being a legal matter is essential and not personal. It would be unfair. EAW doctrine will apply with the exception due to implied Covenant of Fair dealing if Lori sues Brian for wrongful termination.
Letting Peter go is in the best interest of Peter despite his need for the job. He has already been offered employment for one year in good faith but the nature of his job makes his health worsen. This is also affecting his performance in the company. EAW doctrine will apply without any exception.
Federal law regarding undocumented workers
The federal law grants undocumented workers in the United States employment rights, notwithstanding their immigration status. Discrimination against any worker in an organization that employs at least 15 workers based on non-documentation, therefore, becomes illegal under federal laws. For instance, the following laws protect all employees: Title VII of the Civil Act of 1964 protects employers from discriminating employees based on race, national origin, sex, color, and religion divides. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits discrimination based on the opposite sex for employees doing equal work in the same organization. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects employees aged 40 and older from discrimination because of age. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protects employees against discrimination based on their disabilities (Bihari, 2011).
Eligibility of undocumented workers for state workers’ compensation
The federal law and many state laws make it eligible for undocumented immigrants for worker’s compensation because the statue has specifically included undocumented workers. Any employee injured on the job is entitled to compensation benefits because the employer makes a mandatory contribution to an insurance program that pays workers who incur injuries or fall sick in work-related circumstances. However, the following exceptions will apply and thereby disqualify an employee from getting worker’s compensation notwithstanding their documentation status: If the employer does not carry worker's compensation insurance if the claimer is not an employee of the organization and if the injury was not work-related (Bihari, 2011).
I advocate for this practice of all undocumented workers enjoying all the legal rights as stated by both federal and state laws because it protects the employees from discrimination by malicious employers. This ensures undocumented workers enjoy information regarding their safety rights and health. The law also thereby allows employees the right to refusing unsafe work if there are enough grounds that the work poses real hazards to the workers (Bihari, 2011).