Ethical Issues in Business Law
LAW 480 - Business Law
Arizona State University
April 4, 2024
Employment law involves regulations that govern the relationship
between employers and employees. Primarily, these laws ensure workers'
protection from violation of their rights while the contract agreement is
valid. In most cases, workers find themselves in situations that violate their
rights to safe environments. These laws are meant to ensure health, safety
from risks, protection of workers from causes of harm, and protection from
Employees themselves. The regulations provide that employees who find
themselves cornered by circumstances beyond their control are safe from
their employers' malicious action or bias ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). One
of the critical areas of employment laws is wrongful dismissal from work,
which renders employees jobless against the terms agreed upon or the
legal procedure for termination of the contract, which may lead to various
ethical issues.
Dismissal from employment
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a
contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of
termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various
acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human
resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer.
Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be
initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding.
For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed,
both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship
with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own
volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end
the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with
employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break
from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of
an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus
prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ).
Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the
employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in
contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against
wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs,
and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection,
accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of
employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for
people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not
employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through
coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be
terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race,
age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits
termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae,
2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the
grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to
evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled
employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for
termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves
termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or
physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and
physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially,
employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect
their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that
part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe.
This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect
disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al.,
2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by
ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had
an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As
a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave
to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment
that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits,
the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications
for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had
exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability
benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was
suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the
act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily
disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily
informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer
contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to
a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must
ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such
disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not
shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the
employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of
employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's
action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical
information to the human resource department in his various applications
was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a
temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical
information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information
should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful
representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was
eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated
the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring
accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is
important to note that termination of employment is only justified where
the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of
accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that
do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a
person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these
ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full
financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the
court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee
are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation
of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does
not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from
employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that
require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil
rights act.
References
Arnardóttir, O. M., Hotvedt, M. J., Nousiainen, K., & Ventegodt, M. (2018).
Nordic disability employment laws and policies in a human rights
perspective. In Youth, Diversity and Employment . Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Kavanagh, M., & McRae, E. (2017). Employment law: Protecting vulnerable
workers amendment to fair work act. Governance Directions , 69 (4), 241.
Willborn, S. L., Schwab, S. J., Burton Jr, J. F., & Lester, G. L. (2017).
Employment law: Cases and materials . Carolina Academic Press.
