Personnel Law and Ethics

Personnel Law and Ethics

Personnel Law and Ethics
The essence of labeling each case scenario will help the reader to comprehend the scenario and the applied rules. IRAC is, therefore, a crucial tool for analysis of the various hypothetical issues.
Case #8
The hypothetical issue seeks to find out whether hiring an attractive sales manager and firing the ‘unattractive sales lady’ constitute sex discrimination.
In this case, for sex discrimination to occur the employee must have breached the employment policies. This indirect discrimination whereby an individual is not favored particular because one does not possess certain physical traits. This constitutes indirect harassment. Sex discrimination, therefore points at the sex discrimination in work situation (Martin, 2006). Sex discrimination occurs when an individual is subjected to the unwanted condition for one to secure a job, and the reasons are not justified by law. The aspect of sex discrimination comes out in situations like, hiring, firing, training, pay and other conditions of employment.
According to the case, the pressure exerted to Elysa Yanowitz by her superior, Jack Wiswall amounts to sexual discrimination taking note that Elysa is a woman and the reason pointed by her superior are not justified. According to the law, any form of discrimination concerning work and employment is punishable. The criterion in which Jack Wiswall basis are on the looks as he points out that ‘look for someone hot’ this is generally sex discrimination and amounts to sexual harassment. Additionally, the sales associate is said to have a dark skin; Jack wants fair-skinned blondes. This can raise the issue of racism as well. The Equality Act 2010 resonates that it is unlawful for the employer to discriminate based on one’s gender.
In this case, it is apparent that the employer, Jack Wiswall actions constitute sex discrimination since the pressure he exerted to Elysa to fire the sales associate in Macy West store were remarks that indicate harassment and sexual biasness. The employer therefore, is subject to prosecution and should face consequences of breaking the law. The regional sales manager have every right to decline the instruction made by her general manager has his wishes need solid justification.
Case # 9
The case issue seeks to find out whether a victim of same-sex sexual harassment has a viable claim under Title VII of the Civil rights Act.
The law applicable to the scenario is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, color, religion, and national origin. Additionally, the jurisdictions based on sex discrimination points at sexual harassment that cover same-sex harassment as well. For sexual harassment to occur, one must have been subjected to an uncomfortable situation or sexual remarks sufficient to interfere with the working condition.
The facts presented in the case amounts to sexual harassment particularly same-sex sexual harassment. Oncale who works as the crane operator experienced sexual harassment by his fellow crew, particular those having supervisory authority over him. According to the Title VII Act of the Civil Rights Act, it can be noted that Oncale rights to have appropriate working environment were violated. Additionally, he faces same-sex sexual harassment occasioned by two of his supervisors (Lyons and Pippen), and Johnson. Sexual harassment involved physical assault in a sexual manner, and even Lyons threatened him with rape (United States, 2002). It is also an offence to threaten any citizen. The law prohibits any form of sexual harassment and intimidation.
In this case, the employee, Oncale was subjected to illegal same-sex sexual harassment and Brandon Johnson, John Lyons, and Danny Pippen are liable. Oncle is entitled to sue the individuals who harassed him at work guided by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, I can conclude that a victim of same-sex sexual harassment has a viable claim under Title VII of the civil Rights Act based on the hypothetical case facts and claims.
Case # 10
The case seeks to find out if FMLA covers ‘the seeking custody of one’s own children’.
Family and medical leave Act, FMLA was purposed to create a balance between the demands of the workplace and the needs of families. The act primarily allows eligible employees to take time off from work about 12 work weeks unpaid to attend to serious family issues, for example, heath condition of a family member, or care of a newborn or pregnancy, or for foster care of a child or for adoption (Schwartz & Torkelson, 2001). The specific facts from the case are applicable in FMLA since the clause includes, attending the fostering of a child or adoption which points the issues of Kelly to claim custody of the child, Shaneequa Forbes. Additionally, Kelly believes that he is the girl’s biological father. Brooklyn Bureau of Child Welfare should, therefore, not proceed in taking the custody of the girl.
Crosfield is not justified in terminating the employment of Dwayne Kelly since he had told his supervisor that he was the father girl. Further, considering the terms of his employment, Kelly is still eligible to benefit from the protection by FMLA. Similarly, Kelly had taken a leave as FMLA guides him. Crosfield violated the law by dismissing Kelly. Kelly should take legal action against the Crosfield to be reinstated to his job. Further, it should be noted that the FMLA have extended the definition of a family. The 2008 amendments saw that any employee who assumes the role of caring or parenting receives parental rights regardless of the biological relationship is covered by FMLA.

Martin, D. (2006). Discrimination law and employment issues: Avoiding the pitfalls in: age, disability, gender, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. London: Thorogood.
Schwartz, R. M., & Torkelson, N. (2001). The FMLA handbook: A union guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Boston, MA: Work Rights Press.
United States. (2002). Sex discrimination: Employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Washington, D.C.?: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Technical Assistance Program.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s