Employee Rights Review Essay

professs of Equal handicraft hazard and Employee Rights justices counterbalance it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee or potential employee in certain work vagabonds. The Family aesculapian bequeath work on of 1993 was created to dispense family temporary checkup examination leave. The mature divergence in participation effect of 1967 was created to prevent employees from being discriminated against beca commit of board. The Drug- Free exercising Act of 1988 requires some federal contractors and federal grantees to agree that they provide drug-free workplaces as a precondition of receiving a contract or grant from a federal long timency. The requirements for organizations are more(prenominal) extensive because organizations leave to tear comprehensive, programmatic steps to achieve a workplace free of drugs.In the racing shell, Coleman v. recite of Maryland Court of Appeals, Coleman, an employee for the Maryland Court of Appeals, request ed time-off for the purpose of maintenance to serious personal health issues. The request was denied and Coleman was informed he must resign from his position or risk boundination. Coleman sued his employer, claiming that by denying him self-care leave the call forth court was in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. His employer, the give in, argued that the casing should be dismissed based on the states supreme immunity. Sovereign immunity is a legal provision that says a government situation keepnot be sued unless(prenominal) they agree to be sued. After electric discharge by the Federal District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court, the effort was heard by the United States independent Court.On March 20, 2012 the dictatorial Court ruled that a provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act giving workers time off to care for health related issues such(prenominal) as serious illness, pregnancy, or childbirth, is not enforceable in cases involving state employees (Migdal, 2012). The Court justified the ruling by stating that the lawsuits by state employees permitted chthonian the FMLA would violate the constitutional rule that the states, as sovereigns, are immune from suits for damages.Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that state workers cannot sue the states under the Family and Medical Leave Act, essentially stripping public employees of the job security measure otherwise provided by the act. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 protects employees of organizations with more than 50 employees in the case of childbirth, adoption, their own medical care or the care of a family member. The law has several stipulations such requiring 1250 working hours in the prior 12 months, therefore, exact recordkeeping and a process in place to determine FMLA eligibility and compliance is crucial. An modeling of a company HR indemnity regarding the Family and Medical leave Act of 1993 whitethorn readEmployees employed for 12 months or m ore and who have worked at least 1250 hours in the previous 12 months, may engender an un nonrecreational Family and Illness Leave for up to 12-weeks per year. Employees are call for to use all available paid time accrued for the leave spot prior to unpaid leave.The amount of Family and Illness leave will be based on the amount taken in the 12 months front the request for leave, and in cases of serious health condition, require adequate medical certification.Family and Illness Leave may be taken intermittently, or for less than a full day. If the employee cadaver out on leave for more than 2 weeks, additional medical documentation may be required as allowed by law.An employee bring toing to work from Family and Illness Leave shall return to the position held at the beginning of the leave, or to an combining weight position with equivalent pay and benefits. Employees on a Family and Illness Leave will come up to have the Employers portion of the cost for health insurance paid by the Employer during the leave period. It is the responsibility of the employee to make on-time payments for their portion of those benefits temporary hookup on leave.Individuals 40 historic period of age and one-time(a) are protected with employment by The Age Discrimination Employment Act. Applicants and employees a wish well have protection under the ADEA. The law protects discriminating against an individual with respect to any term of employment, as it relates to age, compensation, benefits, job assignments, hiring, firing, layoff, job assignments, and training (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012). Employers who employ 20 or more employees must comply with the Act.A 70-year-old pharmacist employed by Kmart in Honolulu recently challenged The Age Discrimination Employment Act. The lawsuit charged by the EEOC recognized that Kmart unlawfully discriminated against the pharmacist, and a settlement was reached for $120,000. A Kmart store manager openly express that the pharmacist was too old, should retire and was greedy, for continuing to work at the age of 70 (Inside Counsel, 2012). The age discrimination act protects folks for age harassment. In this case the pharmacist was continually distraught with regard to remarks about her age and the hostile work environment that could have bequeathed.Employers tend to stereotype older workers as employees stuck in their ways, and who cannot adapt to new changes. Additionally, employers believe that training older workers is a cost and not a benefit. The Age Discrimination Act prohibits these scenarios from occurring with people over the age of 40. Regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, certain occupations have an exception to the law if the organization can prove the necessity to enforce an earlier retirement or reduce of job responsibilities.An example of a company HR policy screening compliance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 may read something like this The order complies with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and prohibits age discrimination in employment practices of individuals 18 years or older. This policy applies to just is not limited to issues involving hiring, discharge, compensation, terms, conditions, advancement, recruitment, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, training, or privileges of employment.The drug-free Workplace Act requires institutions that receive grants and certain contracts from any federal agency to certify that it will provide a drug-free work place (Office Of General Counsel, 2012). The law was enacted in 1988 and it began with federal contracts of $25,000 or more but was later changed to $100,000 or more where it stands today. The court case that has caused the most argument is Gary Ross v Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc.After California legalized medical marijuana Ross obtained a ethical drug for the drug and used it as directed. He was later fired by Ragingwire Tel ecommunications for failing a drug test as a result of the use of medical marijuana. The court ruled that drug testing in the state was legal, that firing an employee for use of medical marijuana was not equal to discrimination and that employers are not obligated to accommodate the use of medical marijuanaeven outside the workplace (Schwartz, 2010). This ruling is important because sequence some states have legalized medical marijuana and protect individuals from criminal prosecution, it remains clear that a drug-free workplace is critical to the safety of the entire workforce.To avoid conflict an organization must collapse the guidelines for drug testing and communicate the expectation clearly to employees. The human resources team may establish the process for drug testing and implement a plan to assistant employees that test positive on drug screens, such as fling the employee rehabilitation (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007).An example of a company HR policy presentation complian ce with the sober Workplace Act may read something like this The possession, use, or sale of illegal drugs while on Company retention is strictly prohibited. The misuse of any illegal drugs and/or alcoholic beverage while on Company time or during breaks or meals, is strictly prohibited. all employee under the influence of alcohol or drugs that may impair judgment, performance, or the safety of the employee or others while on Company property, Company business, or during work hours, is subject to discipline up to and including termination.The Company conducts post-accident drug and alcohol testing of employees when an accident occurs during company time as allowed by law. The Company reserves the right to conduct random drug and/or alcohol testing at their discretion for performance or behavior issues. A positive result from any testing conducted may result in immediate termination, or unpaid leave to enter an approved rehabilitation program at the Companys discretion. These cond itions are by no means established as a right of the employee, and may be rescinded at any time without prior notice by the Company.ReferencesMigdal, A. (2012). blog of Rights. Retrieved from http//www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-reproductive-freedom/not-so-secret-war-moms-how-supreme-court-took-protections Swanton, Mary, Inside Counsel, EEOC Wins Settlements in Age Discrimination Cases Involving Senior Citizens, retrieved on December 1, 2012 from website, http//www.insidecounsel.com/2010/03/25/eeoc-wins-settlements-in-two-age-discrimination-cases-involving-senior-citizens U.S. Equal Employment Commission, retrieved on December 1, 2012, from website, http//www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/age.cfm Schwartz, S. K. (2010). The Drug-Free Workplace v Medical Marijuana. Retrieved from http//www.cnbc.com/id/36179669/The_Drug_Free_Workplace_vs_Medical_Marijuana Office of General Counsel. (2012). Retrieved from http//counsel.cua.edu/copyright/index.cfm treat Shellerbarger, Work and Family, Th e Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2001. Retrieved 11/29/2012. http//www.benefitslink/buying-time-off/policy/hr/whitman/press.org http//www2.cortland.edu/offices/hr/affirmative-action/policy-on-the-age-discrimination.htm http//www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfmhttp//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_(Equal_Opportunities)_Law,_1988