What I would like to talk about is FMLA, particular the portion of FMLA that covers
maternity leave. As a mother myself this is something that is very close to me and
something I feel needs to be fought for a better law or more equality in my state of
Kentucky. For my current company they offer 6 weeks of unpaid leave for maternity. The
federal law says it can be up to 12 weeks but doesn't require your employee to pay you. As
you can imagine the stress of trying to bring a human into this world then having to go
without pay the entire time could cause some major issues. Not only could this possible
leave some mom's homeless and without food this also puts a-lot of stress on mom's in the
sense of Postpartum depression. Back in 2018 they was a law that stated any employer with
over 50 employees would have to offer at least 6 weeks of paid time off, unfortunately the
law never got passed. However, I do feel like this is something that needs to be fought for.
Also Most fathers don't get any time off for having a child and have to use vacation just to
see their child be born. In my opinion this is a law that needs to be changed. According to a
2019 article in Harvard Business Review, well managed diverse groups excel at making
decisions and addressing problems in business. Companies spend large sums of money on
bias-prevention programs, but, according to the article, they seldom deliver the results that
had been hoped for. But managers, as individual leaders, can take steps to ensure that their
teams include and make good use of diverse voices. The article sets out guidance for day-to-
day management and for developing the team. The authors recommend such things as
asking everyone for input and acknowledging the importance of everyone’s contributions.
The authors also say that managers should explain their rules for training, promotion, and
pay decisions, and should then follow those rules. In a state with at-will employment a
firing would be wrongful if it violates a contract, or if it violates a collective bargaining
agreement, or if it violates an anti-discrimination statute or some other statute, but probably
not otherwise.When firing an employee, an employer has to pay the employee for any
unused vacation time the employee may have. Absent an employment contract, the
employer does not have to provide any severance pay. (U.S. Dept. of Labor, n.d.).At least a
few employers that I know of will give a fired employee some severance pay, usually at
least two weeks' worth. I have heard of at least one law firm giving associate lawyers six
months notice that their employment will be ending. But, of course, an employer has to be
able to trust an employee if the employer is giving advance notice of a termination. Many
employers want to play it safe by terminating employment immediately instead of giving
advance notice. What I have chose to write about this week is a lawsuit that Walmart was
recently involved in. It was a religious discrimination lawsuit involving a manager that the
company was trying to hire. This potential employee had his interview and was offered the
position. When he accepted the offer he told his new potential employer that he had some
religious reason on why he needed a certain schedule. The human resource manager started
to look at the way they could accommodate this scheduling dilemma. Once the human
resource manager was done looking at all the ways they could accommodate the potential
employee they decided that all the things they found would cost the company. They made
the decision that they could not reasonably accommodate the new employees religious
needs and that he may want to apply for a hourly management position, which would be
more suitable for his religious needs. The new employee turned down the suggestion and
filed a lawsuit. He lost the lawsuit because it was proven that Walmart would spend more
on hiring this employee and another employee to accommodate his schedule. This
employee used all of the steps in the legal system but still failed because the laws set in
place make it to where the company has to try to accommodate but when it because a
burden to them they can not hire you. Kelly Phelps, a woman who was a server in a
restaurant in a state park in Tennessee attended a Halloween party at the restaurant. When
the party ended, John Walsh, the assistant park manager, invited Phelps and several other
co-workers to an after-party at his residence on park property. At that after-party he was
intoxicated and he pressed himself against Phelps and continued after she told him to
stop.Phelps and three other women employees complained about Walsh’s behavior, but
Joan Williams, the park manager, told the women that they had been at fault. Walsh would
then smirk at her in the workplace in what Phelps perceived as an intimidating manner.
Phelps claimed that the state retaliated against her by reducing her work hours and placing
her on unfavorable shifts.Eventually Phelps filed a lawsuit against the state under the
Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). That act, like Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of
1964, forbids workplace harassment and other forms of discrimination on the basis of
sex.The trial court dismissed Phelps’ lawsuit, finding that the THRA only prohibits sexual
harassment “in the workplace,” and that the conduct complained about had not occurred in
the workplace. However, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and
reinstated Phelps’s claims. The appellate court stated that harassment outside of the
workplace, “can and often does spill over and affect the victim’s workplace experiences,”
and that the following factors should be considered: “(1) the proximity in time and space to
the “traditional workplace”; (2) the relationship of the event to the employees’ work duties;
(3) the extent to which the employer planned, promoted, or sponsored the event; (4) the
degree to which employees were pressured or encouraged to attend the event and the
number of employees in attendance; (5) the employer’s knowledge of any pattern of similar
harassment by the offending employee under prior similar circumstances; (6) the extent to
which the off-premises harassment impacted the victim’s workplace experience after it was
reported to the employer, including whether the victim was forced to continue working with
the harasser; and (7) any other circumstances pertinent to the inquiry.” Employment is
something that is very important and glad that we have these types of laws in our country.
Employment laws protect employees to make sure companies our adhering to overtime pay,
hourly pay and being treated fairly regardless of race, age, gender, religious beliefs and etc.
It is important that these laws are in place because they allow people to be free. In a
country where our pledge of allegiance states liberty and justice for all these laws are
significant and should stand by our pledge.
One particular case where employment law was in place was a cast against Abercrombie
and Fitch in 2015. Abercrombie in the early 2000's was one of the top fashion designers.
I'm not sure of where they are now because I do not hear too much about them. In this
particular case a woman by the name if Samantha Elauf was denied employment allegedly
because her hijab (head scarf) was considered outside of the companies' dress code policy.
(Reuters, 2022) If know anything about the Muslim belief then you know hijab is not a
fashion statement, Women in the Muslim belief cover their heads covered when outside
when in the presence of other men amongst other things. Some may see a hijab as a fashion
statement because now women do wear head wraps to match their outfits as a fashion
statement. A Hijabs primary use for wearing is for religious beliefs.The employment law
that was that was applied is the discrimination based on religion. The resolution came once
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a case against Abercrombie.
(Reuters, 2022) The case went to the Supreme Court and ruled that an employer cannot
discriminate because of religious beliefs. This is also in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(Reuters, 2022).Without these laws so many people would be held back and not allowed to
conquer their dreams because of what they believe in. So many people could get cheated
out of pay because companies would not have to adhere to labor laws to cover overtime pay
or minimum wage pay. Employers could discriminate and not hire a person because if the
color of their skin. Muslim women would not be able to wear their hijab at work as a
practice of their faith because it is out of the company's dress code. The issue I chose was
the employment of youth in agricultural positions. Specifically the minimum age to work as
what is defined in child labor laws. In non-agricultural positions the minimum age is 14-15
with a permit. However in many communities youth have work experience in agriculture
younger than the age of 14. The agricultural section expands the allowable age and states
that children age 12 and under are allowed to be employed in farm work. According to U.S.
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (2016) " Under 12 may be employed outside
of school hours with parental consent on a farm where employees are exempt from the
federal minimum wage provisions. These requirements are published in Section 570.2(b) of
Part 570 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations".The child labor law for non-
agricultural also explain what is permissible employment for children under 14 even though
the laws require work permits and establish rules for working during non school hours.
Under the FLSA it stated Children Under 14 "Permissible employment for such children is
limited to work that is exempt from the FLSA (such as delivering newspapers to the
consumer and acting). Children may also perform work not covered by the FLSA such as
completing minor chores around private homes or casual baby-sitting."(U.S. Department of
Labor Wage and Hour Division , 2016).Employment law was applied to the resolution by
having clear definitions for the type of occupation the minor will be involved in and in
what setting. It also states that if an employer keeps a record of certification for the youth
regarding which occupation they engage in, it meets sufficient standards. An employee in
New Zealand received an email from his employer saying they needed to meet to discuss
his ongoing role with the company and that the employee could bring a support person to
the meeting. Sensing the meeting would be negative, the employee hired a clown as his
support person.
During the meeting (where the employee was let go from the company), the clown provided
the employee with some humor and lightheartedness.
Whether California law would support an employee’s request for an emotional support
clown as a reasonable accommodation is unclear — but it likely would require the same
individualized assessment as any other disability accommodation request." There are many
issues in employment law in the United States such as being wrongfully terminated.
Someone who is wrongfully terminated can be terminated for their gender, race, or even
religion. I remember an employee was fired who interviewed as a male and was hired was
then fired when they came to work as a male. That right there is considered being
wrongfully terminated. "Wrongful termination occurs when an employer fires or lays off
someone for the wrong reasons." This is not a reason to terminate someone therefore it is
considered to be wrongful termination. I am sure these types of things happen often in the
United States. Harassment is another issue in employment where someone is fired because
they are the ones being harassed which isn’t fair at all. As for the employee being fired
because of their gender, they sued the company. The most common issue I have seen
regarding harassment is the employee being fired that is getting harassed especially if they
are being harassed by management because they are the ones that can fire you which make
people not want to speak out.
References
U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division . (2016). Child Labor Bulletin 102.
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/childlabor102.pdf
