Protection of Employees from Discrimination

The federal laws of employee protection prohibit a number of work place harassment and forms of discrimination. The Congress passes them and they are signed by the president. Under the Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act, the protected classes include Race, Color, Religion, Sex and Nationality of an individual (Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964, 1964).  The Sex protection in the federal laws have also been expounded to include  preventing one from being discriminated on the basis of pregnancy, child birth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment in the place of work.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963

The Equal Pay Act Of 1963 prohibits payment of unequal wages between employees for equal work done that required equal skills, efforts, responsibilities, and performed under similar working conditions and establishment. An employee of similar capabilities must be offered the same opportunities for training, promotion, transfer, and apprenticeship programs. Under the Act, an employee can sue in the court of law for any discrimination in payment where they are compensated less than their peers in the same position, working under the same conditions. An employer in that regard must show that the difference in pay is attributable to sex-neutral systems like the seniority system, merit system, or a system that measures the earning based on quality or quantity of work, or a premium for completing genuine training program in the establishment to earn such an amount of money. 

 Marly, in the first scenario, started a blog to protest that African American employees had not received any pay rise and that the CEO’s bonuses were being awarded irregularly and not attributable to sex-neutral systems. Marly can sue the company and give enough evidence on her case that the employees of Africa American descent were working under the same working conditions in the same establishment but were not receiving a pay rise in comparison to other employees of other races. It is against the law to discriminate employees on the basis of their race.

Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act

This Act covers extensively on the types of conducts that are prohibited but may still be experienced in the place of work. Under this act, it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate an employee based on all the protected class matters that involve hiring, discharge, compensation and terms, conditions, and privileges of the employment. It is also against the federal law of employment protection for any employer to limit, segregate, or classify their employees or a job applicant in whichever way that would deny or tend to deny any individual opportunities or would affect the employees or applicant’s status as employee due to membership in a protected class. (Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964, 1964) 

In the second scenario, Mitch, a department supervisor request approval to fire his secretary who is a Hispanic, a devout catholic and for putting Right-to-life flyers in the employee break room. This is unlawful as the law prohibits employees or applicants from being discriminated against having membership to a protected class as the Hispanic. The law also prohibits one from being discriminated based on the religion. By firing the secretary who is a staunch catholic, the supervisor was discriminating against her due to her religion which is not advocated for in the federal employment protection laws.

It is also unlawful for any labor organization to exclude or expel its membership or otherwise discriminate against an individual because of their protected class. In addition, it is unlawful to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership, or to classify or fail to refer for employment any individual in any way which would deny or even tend to deny an individual of employment opportunities or would reduce an employment opportunity or otherwise affect their status as an employee or as an applicant for employment due to the individuals membership in a protected class. 

Health and Safety Act

Every worker has the right to know about all the hazards in their place of work and have access to information, supervision, and instruction on how to protect their health and safety in the workplace. Employees should participate in identifying and solving health and safety problems or through a representative of the health and safety team in the work place. They have the right to refuse work that they believe is dangerous to their health and safety or of any other employee in the working place (occupational Health And Safety Act, 2012). 

James, in the fourth scenario had the right to know about all the hazards in his place of work while working with chemicals. James too had a right to ask for compensation for the injuries he got in his liver as a result of working in a hazardous area without him knowing the effects.

The Employment at Will Doctrine

The employment at will doctrine refers to the assumption that any employment is for an indefinite period of time and may be terminated either by the employee or the employer. An employee can be terminated for any reason or for no reasons. It has a number of exceptions.

Marly in the first scenario is fired for writing a blog on racial discrimination in the company’s remuneration.  As per the exceptions in the employment doctrine, one cannot be fired for filling a compensation claim of the suffering of the other African American employees in the company where their salaries were not rising comparatively to other employees in the company

Public Policy Exceptions

  One of the exceptions is that an employee cannot be terminated for filling a workers compensation claim after an injury at work or for refusing to break the law at the request of the employer. In the third scenario, Brian refused to sign a leave request for Lori for jury duties and wants to fire him for being absent without permission. An employee’s job cannot be terminated like in this scenario whereby Lori refused to break the law on Brian’s request. In the last scenario, James who has worked for a company for one year and has a rare liver disease suffers more due to the chemicals he is exposed to at the place of work. Though the employer finds him less productive, his employment cannot be terminated due to the injuries he gets after working with chemicals that affect his health in case he claims compensation. Marly in the first scenario is fired for writing a blog on the racial discrimination in the company’s remuneration. As per the exceptions in the employment doctrine, one cannot be fired for filling a compensation claim on the suffering of the other African American employees in the company where their salaries were not rising comparatively to other employees in the company. (Muhl, 2001)

Implied-Contract Exception

This is applied when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee even though there was no any express written material stating the kind of employment. (Muhl, 2001)

Covenant of Good Faith Exceptions

The exception states that all terminations that are made on bad faith or malicious intent are prohibited. In the first scenario of Marly, such a case should not lead to an automatic dismissal.  Also in the case of Lori, he is protected as the termination was ill intended. (Muhl, 2001)

Undocumented Workers in the US

Undocumented workers in the US are people not legally allowed to work there. The Immigration Reform Act which is a federal law requires employers to fully verify the employees’ eligibility to work in US. Heavy sanctions are imposed on the employers who might unknowingly hire unauthorized employees. 

However, in a number of states in the US, undocumented workers get compensated due to presence of states statutes that recognizes undocumented employees. These employees are able to get access to public benefits. In some states like Wyoming, all the undocumented employees are not able to access any compensation. They do not recognize any person who comes to work in the state and is undocumented as an employee. 

Conclusion

It is important to recognize any person who has worked at any time at a given station as an employee and he/she should enjoy all the privileges that other employees enjoy. Failing to recognize them as employees might be discrimination which is not advocated for in the Federal laws for employment protection. Job exclusion based on religious attires or even grooming practices is prohibited. The National labor Relations Act allows all the workers to organize and negotiate with their employers regarding salaries, promotions, jury duties, and health status. (Lazar, 2015). The OSHA Act also gives workers in US rights to work in a safe and healthy working place. Employers who repeatedly or willfully violates standards and rules of health and safety should face civil penalty.

References

Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964. (1964).

Occupational Health And Safety Act. (2012).

Franklin, D. J., & Powell, C. (n.d.). AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. Employment Discrimination Law and its Application to Common Workplace.

Lazar, W. (2015). Undocumented Immigrant Workers:Enforcing Rights. New York Law Journal.Muhl, J. (2001). The employment-at-will doctrine:three major xceptions. Employment at will.