Employment Law 1
Employment Law Avelino Rosa University of Phoenix BUS/415 Lisa R. Browning 12/15/08
Employment Law 2
The purpose of this paper is to analyze a specific, hypothetical employment situation encountered and to include the information regarding employment conflicts, questions, grievances, lawsuits, etc., in terms of how the situation was handled or resolved. Employment conflicts are a constant issue everyday in any organization; it is how you handle them both legally and professionally that counts. Employment Law Situation
In this situation an employee, new to office politics was continuously making slanderous or racial remarks. Not that they were blatantly slanderous or racial he did them ignorantly. The employee would make remarks such as “old people should not drive. Anyone over the age of 50 should be restricted from driving. They always cut me off. Forget it if they are Asian, it doesn’t matter what their age is” or “well, all the people who live in that neighborhood are white and rich” or “only tall Mexicans hold positions of management” which were obviously against the diversity policy at the organization. On another occasion, frustrated by the lack of Starbucks Coffee houses in the area, he made a comment to another employee upon arriving at training one morning. “Don’t Asians drink coffee around here?” Several employees had made other observations in regards to comments made about African Americans and Asians; however, after this last comment, several employees brought it to the attention of the employee’s manager to address.
Employment Law 3
Federal Employment Laws Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is illegal to harass someone because of the person's race or color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). This is not just employers but employees as well. When the employee was confronted about the situation, he said that the person he said these things to was agreeing with him; however, it was brought to the employee’s attention that it was not that particular employee that complained, rather a group of people who overheard this. Of course, this upset the employee stating that the other employees were eavesdropping and should not have been listening to his conversations. The manager had to remind the employee of the laws pertaining to harassment and that it did not matter if he had said it directly or indirectly to the offended employees. Effectiveness of the Law The employee had received training in diversity and had completed a required tutorial on workplace harassment. The law is very clear in respect to workplace harassment and the employee was reprimanded appropriately. As he questioned his actions and what exactly he had done, the law provided very specific answers. When reminded of his tutorials, he abdicated that he had done wrong and accepted the consequences.
Employment Law 4 Actions Required by Law...
Mortimer, M., 2006. Employment Law and Labor Law. Employlaw.com retrieved December 11, 2008 from: http://www.employlaw.com/hoffa.htm
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), 2008. Workplace Rights. Retrieved December 11 from: http://www.nlrb.gov/workplace_rights/employees_or_employers_not_covered_by_nlra.aspx
Please join StudyMode to read the full document