Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Rights
Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Rights Over the course of history in the United States there have been many laws put in place to protect employees and employers. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 are two such acts signed into law. Each of the laws protects workers from termination for causes outlined in the acts. Issues about drug testing have become more prominent in the workplace because of the different types of testing procedures available. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits, under certain circumstances, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 was added as an amendment to the sex discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect pregnant women or women that are of child bearing age from discrimination in the workplace. Drug testing has become popular in many businesses in today’s society. This upsets many employees because they think that what they do on their own time does not affect what they do at work. The way drug testing is administrated has been of some topic, which has even been brought up in local court cases lately.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits private employers, state, and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment (EEOC.GOV, 2008). This act was created that people with disabilities are treated fairly in the workplace. In April 2010 Bridget Hardt sued Reliance Standard Life Insurance for not providing her with permanent disability benefits. Her case was presented and partially proven but the judge ruled that Reliance Standard Life Insurance should be awarded time to assemble a proper benefit plan. The judged believe that because of misinformation the company could was not afforded the opportunity to make a fair decision on disability benefits for Ms. Hardt (Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins., 2010). After a short period the case went back to court and Ms. Hardt was awarded benefits. After another filing by her about attorney fees, she was eventually awarded attorney fees and retroactive disability benefits. Employees have to know that they have many rights that employers have to respect. However, that does not mean that employees should falsely accuse employers of discrimination. There needs to be valid proof that unfair acts of discrimination are taking place. The relationship needs to be created by contract. It can either be in writing or oral, unless the contract is to last more than a year it has to be in writing to satisfy a state's statute of frauds. The contract can have any lawful terms that the employee or employer wish to include such as time, pay, benefits, and also a description of the position that the employee will be assuming. Employers and employees alike have certain rights and can expect certain rights from each other when a relationship is stared. Employers have the right to expect employees to have the skills that they state they have, they have the right to expect employees to perform at a certain level. Employers also have the right to tell the employee what tasks to perform and also how to perform those tasks. Employees have an agreement to work only for an employer during hours of employment meaning that they can not do personal tasks or work on private business ventures on the employer’s time. Employees are also expected to follow instructions set forth by the employer and also abide by the company rules. As far as rights for the employee go, the employee is entitled to be paid for the work he or she do. Most company’s also offer employees any number of fringe benefits. An employee can also expect the employer to provide a safe place to work and equipment. That although varies by what the type of work that the employee is doing. If an employee becomes disabled on the job he or she should be properly evaluated, and he or she should receive disability benefits. In addition, any prospective employees who have a certain type of disability should be viewed on the basis that they can do a specified job despite their disability. The employee can also expect that proper training should be provided by the employer. Many employers keep records of their employees such as payroll, tax information, and information regarding illness and injury because that is what the law requires. Employers keep other records as well to keep job performance at its best, records such as reference and credit checks, job performance reports, and records of disciplinary actions. These records are important for both the employee and the employer.
The Pregnancy Disabilities Act of 1978 Firing expecting mothers once was normal, refusing to hire expecting mothers, and disciplining expecting mothers for becoming pregnant; this is discrimination because of pregnancy. The Pregnancy Disabilities Act (PDA) of 1978 is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of women becoming pregnant, giving birth, or any related medical condition (EEOC, 2011). The PDA applies to any organization with 15 or more employees. In 1978 this act was passed to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of General Electric versus Gilbert. The Supreme Court stated that Title VII sex discrimination in employment does not include a ban on pregnancy-based discrimination (Colker, 2011). Because of this injustice to childbearing women, Congress provided a broad antidiscrimination protection to pregnant women by amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The PDA protects pregnant women from becoming fired, pay cuts, and any adverse actions from the employer. A company cannot refuse to hire a woman because of pregnancy, companies must provide breast feeding mothers a place to use a breast pump, and pregnant women will receive the same benefits as non-pregnant employees. Companies also cannot forbid a female employee who is within childbearing age of hazardous duties (AAUW, 2008). Companies must treat pregnant women as if that individual has a temporary disability, and may need extra accommodations. In 1993 Congress enacted the Family and medical Leave Act, which allows women to take six weeks leave after a birth or adoption of a child. The combination of the two acts has ensured pregnant women have more job security and legal rights concerning pregnancy (Colker, 2011). Pregnancy discrimination has become a fast growing type of discrimination with 70% of women with children are back on the workforce. In 2007 The EEOC had to file suit against a financial news service called Bloomberg, LP. The company has 72 current and former employees who became pregnant while working for the company and claim pregnancy discrimination. The employees were ridiculed, demoted, excluded from management, had reduced pay, transferred, displaced, or fired after announcing the pregnancy or returning from maternity leave. Bloomberg’s defense to the allegations was that the pregnant women lost momentum (AAUW, 2008). The case will have between 150 – 200 depositions taken, which includes the company’s founder Michael Bloomberg, who was no longer in charge of the day-to-day operations of the company. Although when he was there on a day-to-day basis a few years prior he had told one of the women who had originally brought the case to the EEOC that she should kill her baby instead of caring her baby to term. The company is in violation of the PDA, and will have to answer to this; however, the company denies all accusations and states there is no proof. This lawsuit went on for years and eventually settled out of court with no mention of wrongdoing from the company. The Human resources (HR) department of every company has the responsibility to ensure that all employees returning from maternity leave have the same fair treatment as all other employees returning from leave. If the company’s policy is to hold that position until that individual is back then all employees should receive the same position back. If the company’s policy is that once an individual returns that a job will be given back, but it may not be the same one an individual had previously. Some companies have a policy that employees who have to take leave may have to wait until there is an opening to return to work.
Drug Testing
The Issue Drug testing has become a widespread issue in the workplace because the recent legalization of medical marijuana. Patients whom are prescribed medical marijuana to help treat medical conditions are faced with a dilemma because the drug used to treat their conditions is the same thing that could cost them their job. Employees who use marijuana off-work hours on their personal time, to help heal their condition are protected under the law from criminal consequences associated with marijuana, but are not protected from their job drug testing. Currently, employers have the right to terminate employees who fail a drug test even if the employee has legal clearance to use the drug. Alison Holcomb described the situation best by saying “Whether the patient decided to use marijuana, OxyContin, or an anti-depressant should be a private medical matter and unless the use of that medical treatment has an impact on her ability to do her job, or involves a safety issue, she should not be forced to choose between her doctor’s advice and earning a living” (Schwartz, 2010).
The Law Numerous lawsuits have been filed by medical marijuana patients terminated after failing a drug test. Recently the Washington Supreme Court ruled an “8-1 decision that state law does not provide any employment protections for medical marijuana users and does not require companies to accommodate those patients” (Baker, 2011, para. 2). This decision is derived from a lawsuit filed in 2007 where a woman who worked at TeleTech Customer Care Management was fired after her pre-employment drug screen returned positive (Baker, 2011). Another case that took place in 2008 involved an employee of RagingWire Telecommunications, based in Sacramento, who was fired for using medical marijuana. This decision shed light on other cases pertaining to this matter by specifying, “…the state’s medical marijuana laws protect patients from criminal prosecution, it provides no protection on the job” (Schwartz, 2010, para. 13). However, certain states such as Vermont, Hawaii, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado, New Jersey, and Michigan identify employee protections in which the only grounds employers have for termination is there is on-the-job consumption (Schwartz, 2010).
Implications
HR departments are challenged and faced with a sensitive issue when employees who use medical marijuana for health reasons are terminated for violating a policy they may have been abiding by. Most employees rely and depend on the medical benefits provided by their employer so when they are fired for using a prescription drug, not only do they lose a source of income but also the lose of medical benefits provided by the employer. HR departments represent the employee as well as the employer so showing compassion while enforcing policy is the suggested approach. Holcomb advises, “human resources departments should tread carefully, contact their legal counsel and adhere to both federal and state laws regarding the use of pot” (Schwartz, 2010). HR departments are assisted by the policy developed by the employer and acknowledged by every employee prior to employment, which identifies the company’s stance on the drug, and alcohol policy. The HR department at Comcast strictly follows the policy, stated in the employee handbook on Comcast’s intranet and includes the use of drugs both on-duty and off-duty as grounds of termination (Comcast, 2011).
Conclusion
Employees across the United States are aware that laws protect their rights in the workplace. When a company looks to hire an employee, laws such as Americans with Disabilities Act are designed to protect potential employees from discrimination due to a disability. Women know that she is covered when she has a child but may not know that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects her from being fired or harassed because of her pregnancy. The issues surrounding drug testing are still in the process of determining the best test procedure for drug use. With the ever-changing society the laws and regulations protecting employees and employers will continue to change throughout the years.
References
AAUW (2008) The Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Retrieved From: http://www.aauw.org/act/laf/library/pda.cfm
Baker, M. (2011). W.A. court: Workers can be fired over medical pot. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i8-bWMFTPOfodVKAAXg_68Kml7Sg?
Colker, Ruth (2011) Major Acts of Congress. Retrieved From: http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/pregnancy-discrimination-act
Comcast. (2011). Employee Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.teamcomcast.com/home/filestore/Employee_Handbook_Cal/flash.html#/4/
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 - Supreme Court 2010, retrieved from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-448.pdf
Schwartz, S.K. (2010). The Drug-Free Workplace vs. Medical Marijuana. NBC Miami. Retrieved from http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/The-Drug-Free-Workplace-vs-Medical-Marijuana-91709929.html
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Facts about the Americans with Disabilities Act, Retrieved from: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-ada.html
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2011) The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Retrieved From: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm
US Government Benefits Help (2011) Pregnancy Discrimination Act Text. Retrieved From: http://usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/index.php?t=pregnancy+discrimination+act+text
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Cascio (2014) states “The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, state and local government services, public…
- 901 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
This file of HRM 300 Week 3 Employee Rights Review shows the solutions to the following problems:…
- 513 Words
- 5 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
The ADA legislation prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities. As an employer and Human Resources representative, any agency with fifteen or more employees is prohibited from discriminating against applicants, job seekers, and employees with…
- 1741 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Like the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act has several sections for deciding if employment discrimination exists. Section 501 prohibits qualified individuals with disabilities from being discriminated against from federal employers. Section 503 forbids employment discrimination to any individual with a disability as well as requiring affirmative action when hiring, placing, or advancing people with disabilities by federal contractors. Section 504 prevents any government funded federal agency or policy from discriminating against individuals with a disability who are qualified for their position. Section 504 also allows an individual with a disability to receive any reasonable accommodations necessary in order for them to carry out the “essential function” of the job.…
- 1030 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 is meant for businesses that discriminate against qualified applicants from employment opportunity because of a disability (United States Department of Labor, 2013). Disabilities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, and learning. The object of the law is to protect persons with disabilities by providing equal employment opportunities. The law extends protect to individuals diagnosed with HIV or AIDS and individuals who have completed drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. The company is required to provide employees with disabilities different accommodations, such as elevators, access ramps, and hearing impaired telephones. Companies, not in compliance with this law may receive civil penalties, such as $55,000…
- 1000 Words
- 4 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Disability Discrimination Act (1995) – The disability discrimination act ensures civil rights for people with disabilities and protects them from any form of discrimination. It encourages organisations and health authorities to overcome barriers and make reasonable adjustments to ensure full accessibility.…
- 3818 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Pre-employment drug testing and post hiring random testing has become common place in today’s business world. In order to ensure that their employees can function safely for the good of themselves, fellow employees and the company property, companies have adopted the practice of drug testing employees.…
- 826 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The disability discrimination Act 1995 and 2005E protect people with disabilities from unfair discrimination in areas such as employment, and access to goods and services.…
- 3778 Words
- 12 Pages
Better Essays -
All of the company policies and practices mandated by Title VII derive from the many amendments contrived from Title VII. By law, all organizations and business must adhere to the implementation of policies and business practices that protect the right of U.S. citizens. Each organization may have different policies that they must ensure is an integral part of their company procedures. “For example, amendments to Title VII are discrimination against age and disability. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to employers of 20 or more employees, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) intentions are to make society more accessible to people with disabilities (Alexander, Bennett, & Hartman, 2007,…
- 1766 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.…
- 1654 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
If everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom that is set forth in the Declaration, disabled people should not be robbed of their rights. However, they are still devalued from conducting common tasks which puts them at the bottom of the priority list as an employee and even so as a friend. In search to solve this problem, according to “The Disabled” by Bender, D. on July 26, 1990, President George Bush signed the ADA into law that serves and protects people with disabilities. This law prohibits discrimination against the disabled by employers and required commercial establishments, public accommodation, and mass transportation be made accessible to disabled persons (Bender 17). When the law was signed, new doors opened for the deaf and hard of hearing culture for a better opportunity in gaining equal rights. President Bush appointed four titles to protect deaf and hard of hearing people. In “The ADA and Deaf Culture” by Tucker, B. Title I, prohibits both public and private employers from refusing to hire or promote an individual because of his or her impairment and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for applicants or employees who are deaf or hard of hearing (Tucker 28). If a deaf or hard of hearing employee can pass the essential part of the job qualification, he or she is protected by the ADA to be hired. Also, the ADA prohibits employers to discriminate disabled people in means of recruitment, job applications procedures, pay rates, and promotions. The second title, Title II, “Requires all state and local government agencies to make all of their services accessible to individuals with disability” (NAD 22). This ensures people with disability to be able to participate in services, programs, and activities who can meet the essential eligibility requirements. Such places that must make these accommodations are schools, libraries, police and fire department, public hospitals, jails and prisons, motor vehicle departments, parks and…
- 587 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The issue of mandatory drug testing for certain jobs is perplexing and a complicated topic. After hearing both sides of the debate presented in class, I feel that drug testing for certain jobs is a beneficial aspect to incorporate into the workplace. I feel this way due to the potential that testing for drugs in certain jobs such as healthcare, government officials, law enforcement and other occupations that involve decisions that can directly impact the lives of others, has on removing harmful individuals from positions of power and the direct influence that testing has on those individuals to avoid drugs while working.…
- 674 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), a 1978 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. The impetus for the act was a 1976 Supreme Court decision, General Electric v. Gilbert, in which the Court held that denial of benefits for pregnancy-related disability was not discrimination based on sex (Gelb,1996). This holding echoed past management decisions by which married women faced job discrimination and pregnant women were routinely fired. By 1977, women made up more than 45 percent of the labor force, but only one-quarter had insurance plans that allowed sick leave for pregnancy-related illness. Reaction to the Gilbert decision was swift. Women’s organizations, feminists, labor and civil rights advocates, and some right-to-life groups formed a coalition known as the Campaign to End Discrimination Against Pregnant Workers to seek legislative relief from the Court’s decision. Legislation to amend Title VII and overturn Gilbert was introduced in Congress in 1977 and passed, as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, one year later. Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act 1978…
- 2457 Words
- 71 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Drug testing refers to the process through which an employer determines whether employees are using drugs. Many companies have adopted drug testing policies in the work places. The testing is done to determine whether they use, or have used alcohol and drugs such as amphetamines, marijuana and cocaine. The companies have implemented the drug testing policies by sharing written policies with all the employees. For that matter, the companies have laid diversified strategies in mitigating the effects of drug use in the workplace. They have done this through educating the employees about the dangers of drug abuse, and provide assistance programs for those who have problems in relation to alcohol and drug abuse (Verstraete, 2011).…
- 982 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
For many years we have been having an issue with disability discrimination happening in the workplace. Since 1990, the law of Americans with Disabilities came to act and because of this act the disabled were protected from employers discriminating against employees or applicants with disabilities. ADA covered all aspects of employment including hiring, pay, promotion, firing, and more. Well even though this act came to play doesn’t mean we still don’t get discrimination in the workplace, still till this day employers like to fire disabled people.…
- 186 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays