Labor and Employment Laws Essay

Human resource departments are responsible for effectively, legally, fairly, and consistently attempting to maximize an organizations return on its human capital investment funds while minimizing financial risk. This is why labor legalitys and Civil suffices are laid in the work place and other felicities to insure the well pabulum of others are with protrude risk and effective(WGU).Analysis of Situation AIn any situation all bases need to be covered and all discipline gathitherd before any request is finalized. It is necessary to establish whether the employee fitting for the leave and whether the terms as stipulated at a lower place the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) were actually met. The Act requires that for atomic number 53 to benefit from the leave he or she must have worked with the employer for more than 12 months. Employee A had worked for 2 historic period and it can be deduced that he had successfully completed at to the lowest degree 1250 hours at the work place. The rationale of the law is to make it possible for one to accomplish his professional obligations and personal ones without having to choose one at the outgo of a nonher. The evidence for the leave must be for the care of a family part who has a serious health gibe or ones own health condition. Employee A asked for the leave to engender care of his married woman who had prematurely given birth to twins.In fact, this is one of the reasons listed in the FMLA for this sign of leave. It is not difficult to discern that this is a serious medical condition which requires continuous care of the patient. Therefore, employee A should not be subjected to any development upon his request of leave. Focusing on the duration of the leave, an employee is entitled to up to 12 weeks of this type of leave, so long as the right paperwork is provided. Employee A had been out for 11 weeks, hence, was still within the statutory period of 12 weeks. Since the loss of paper work is not a concern under this situation, I have confidence that he supplied all the required documentation.The employee must be reinstated to the same position he held before the leave, so long as hestill is able to fare the essential function of the mull. Employee A was still able to perform the functions of the bank line. Hence, he was reinstated to his former position. On the add of give birth during the leave, the Act does not require employers to pay the employees during the leave alone any arrangement to the contrary must, however, be respected. Since, there was no parallelism to this effect with the employer the man periodr is under no obligation to pay the withheld fee for the 11 weeks. The new manager in withholding the salary did not breach any law and this decision cannot be properly verbalize to be antiblack laws, in this case FMLA (Lau & Lisa, 2013).Analysis of Situation BGeneral laws of Human Rights are captured in the U.S. constitution. The Civil Rights are cont ained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The specifics of employment law are contained in divers(a) federal statutes that address specific issues in employment law. The employment law to be considered in the current situation is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The brief statement of the facts regarding employee B is that he was 68 years of age and had served Company X for 42 years and was assessed to be above average on his performance. He was allegedly not promoted because of his age with the company preferring a junior employee of 32 years who received a performance review of adequate. First of all, Company X is bound by the Act, since it had 75 employees which is way above the minimum requirement of 20 employees.As such, Company X in hiring, promoting or firing its employees must pay due regard to the requirements of the Act. Secondly, employee B is currently 68 years old, implication that he is protected by the Act which states that it protects worker s above the age of 40. If the discernment of both employees revealed that the older one was still performing better than the jr. one then it would be hard to find a honest reason for the promotion of the jr. employee. Additionally, the situation does not fall under the exception of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) stipulated in the Act.Under this exception, a younger employee can be preferred to an older one if it is objectively formal and to some extent obvious that the job cannot be effectively performed by the older employee. In view of the foregoing, I rest upon the conclusionthat there was difference on the basis of age in selection of the younger employee for the promotion at the expense of employee B. The fact that the employee was not asked to sign an ADEA spill or any document to the effect confirms my position. Age was the but for reason for lack of promotion of the employee (Lau & Lisa, 2013).Analysis of Situation CThe only bearing that Company X gave for trouble to operate employee C was that such a move would have been costly to the company. Therefore, I would assume that the employee was qualified for the job as the applicable statue (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) applies to qualified but disabled persons. Consequently, it cannot be doubted that employee C was qualified for the job. Secondly, the Act gives considerations of whether the disabled person can perform the essentials of the job. Under this test it would be understandable when a company fails to hire a blind person as a driver. This is impossible since such a person cannot perform the essential functions of the job. Accordingly, the Act also permits the failure to hire a disabled person if it will require fair accommodation in order to perform the job.The essential function of the job would be incompatible with employee Cs situation and as such the level of accommodation required was too high. Company Xs decision not to hire employee C does not amount to di scrimination but an instance of genuine distinction. The adjustments needed to accommodate employee C would be too much and, therefore, the decision not to hire him is not discriminatory against him. As a result, employees are more protected since they are the svelte parties in the employment contract bargain. This is because employees can be exploited by ill-intentioned employers. As such employment laws together with other human rights laws take care of employees. The laws also protect the interests of employers by lining the duration of authoritative leaves, qualifications for some benefits as discussed above and hiring of employees on the basis of merit and not any other considerations. (Lau & Lisa, 2013).Work Cited Page1.Lau T.S. & Lisa J.A. (2013) The Legal and Ethical surroundings of Business. New York Flat World Knowledge Inc.