efforts made by the federal government in an attempt to curtail discrimination at the workplace

efforts made by the federal government in an attempt to curtail discrimination at the workplace

Workplace discrimination, which refers to all brands of practices aiming at segregating specific individuals of groups, is a significant hindrance to workplace diversity. It is a significant problem facing distinct organizations. All workers with diverse backgrounds seek to achieve equal position and treatment. Professionally, employers should appreciate diversity and offer equal opportunities for all workers, create a conducive working environment for all employees, and offer equal opportunities without discrimination based on color, ethnicity or race, political or religious affiliations. Some employers negate such legal requirements, thus leading to instances of workplace discrimination. The need to safeguard workers from such discrimination led to the formulation of anti-discriminatory laws. Besides, the adoption of anti-discriminatory rules aims at ensuring that workers’ welfare is maintained and that all the employees are subjected to fair treatment. The paper reflects on some of the necessary legal frameworks towards analyzing the efforts made by the federal government in an attempt to curtail discrimination at the workplace.

Q1.

As briefed earlier, the need to safeguard employees against unfair treatment and discrimination at the workplace influenced the decision by the federal government to adopt legal frameworks that protect workers. The legal frameworks stipulate on some of the probable legal implications and punishment that employers or organization’s management team should face when caught subjecting workers to unfair treatment or discrimination. There are diverse acts and legislations enacted with the significant purpose of protecting employees against all forms of discrimination from their employers, the management team, or other colleagues at the workplace. The Equal Opportunity Act, which was enacted during the year 2010, is one of the recent legislations aiming at safeguarding and protecting workers against unfair treatment at the workplace (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011). The act requires employers to offer all the workers with equal opportunities as far as transfers, promotions, and training are concerned. According to the legislation, it is illegal to deny some workers such opportunities based on their ethnic and racial background, color, or religion.

Secondly, the Paycheck Fairness Act (2019) is another legislation aiming at curtailing instances of workplace discrimination. The act seeks to ensure all workers get subjected to equal pay for equal work and minimize all discriminatory advances based on ethnicity, race, or gender. The Women’s Equity Agenda (WEA), which was adopted during the year 2015 in the State of New York, is another legislation aiming at negating discrimination at the workplace. The enactment safeguards women against gender inequality at the place of work. Similarly, the law addresses the aspect of transgender discrimination as far as public employment is concerned. Diverse instances are showing a collision between the federal government legislation and the state, especially when dealing with legal probes associated with workplace discrimination. The case Garrett v. The University of Alabama seeking to sue the state of Alabama evidences a collision between the federal and state. Whereas the federal court argued that the state of Alabama could be sued for the violation of disability discrimination laws, the state considered the immunity articulated in section 5 powers to negate the argument.

Q2.

Employment-at-will doctrine upholds the argument that workers have the rights to terminate employment and leave the organization whenever they wish and that employers are legally allowed to have the termination of their employees’ job without giving notice (Werhane & Radin, 2013). The doctrine seeks to curtail any chances of wrongful job terminations and minimize legal employment probes between employers and their employees. The doctrine has two significant purposes.

1. It allows employers and workers to agree on working together without necessarily having to have long-term contracts.
2. The doctrine acts as a defence supporting the decision by the employers to terminate employment when employee s raises a lawsuit accusing the former on wrongful job termination.

There are four significant exceptions associated with this doctrine which plays an essential role in influencing court decision when handling such lawsuits. The four exceptions relate to public policy, individual employment acts, company policy, and collective bargaining agreements. The first exception on public policy appreciates the existence of distinct legal frameworks, policies, and rules whose primary purpose is to safeguard employees. Such legal frameworks influence the decision on whether employment at will is applicable when dealing with an employment termination lawsuit. Secondly, the covenant of good faith is another exception that influenced the decision made by the court when handling such legal probes. Such exception calls for fairness on the side of both the employer and the employee. The two parties are expected to avoid negating each other’s benefits or rights as stipulated in the constitution. Thirdly, the exception of employment contracts reflects on primary legal considerations when dealing with implied or written employment contracts. The fourth exception relates to collective bargaining units. According to the exception, contractual provisions are stipulating on the basis that a worker can be terminated when dealing with workers covered by associations or unions.

The scenarios present diverse aspects of workplace discrimination. Aspects of fair treatment and failure to abide by the employment agreements are reflected in the case scenarios. In the first scenario, the decision by Brenda to fire an employee was not smart. Brenda, who was a manager, failed to appreciate the employee’s grievances concerning workplace discrimination. As briefed earlier, federal laws seek to protect workers against any discrimination based on gender, age, political, or religious affiliations. The employee pointed out that Asian American employees were discriminated against when making promotion decisions. As such, Brenda should have addressed the concerns rather than firing the employee. In the second scenario, Jason’s decision to fire his secretary was a smart one. Even though the secretary was staunch Christian, she ought to have considered the implications of her decisions to take out to pray during the busiest time in the morning. Such behavior risked the collapse of the organization hence posing the risk of unemployment to all the workers. The department manager’s decision was a smart one to save the company from collapsing. Thirdly, Brian’s decision to fire Lori due to absence without permission was not a smart one. Various legislations protect employee’s right for jury duty leave. Lastly, the decision by Peter’s boss to fire him due to health conditions is not a smart one. Even though the rights of employees vary depending on one’s state, federal law safeguards employees against job termination due to health reasons. The written or implied employment contracts and covenant of goodwill are the two major applicable exceptions if these employees decide to sue the employer for illegal job termination.

The federal law integrates legal frameworks relating to undocumented workers and their rights as far as employment contracts are concerned (Chen, 2012). Such undocumented employees enjoy all the legal remedies and rights offered to employees by both the state and federal laws. Even though states vary on the nature of legal frameworks on such undocumented workers, it is worth appreciating that most federal and state laws give clear legal frameworks to ensure that the rights of such employees are safeguarded. The aspect of eligibility for such undocumented workers to receive compensation in the US raises diverse legal controversies. Regardless of such legal disputes, it is worth appreciating that the undocumented workers are eligible for receiving payment in the United States. All workers who suffer from various injuries when rendering services to an organization are eligible for compensation, whether they are documented or not. According to the legal articulations, employers are supposed to cater for medical treatment costs incurred by such workers. Secondly, undocumented workers who are fired by their employer are eligible for a compensation claim. They are legally protected and can seek a legal probe to recover the income that they lose due to the employers’ decision to terminate their employment contract.

I support such an approach since it aims at ensuring that all workers, either documented or undocumented, enjoy various rights. Besides, such legal frameworks aimed at protecting undocumented workers against any exploitation by their employer. Several considerations are influencing the decision to support the argument that both documented and undocumented workers are eligible for compensation. First, all workers should enjoy fairness concerning the rights stipulated under safety and health laws. Safety and health of all workers should be maintained regardless of whether the employees are either documented or undocumented.

Conclusion

In summary, the paper reflects on the federal and state legal frameworks addressing the aspect of employee discrimination at the place of work. Before the adoption of such legal frameworks, most workers are discriminated against based on their skin color, ethnic background, race, political, or religious affiliations. The legal acts and legislations on workers discrimination were enacted to reduce such segregation. The statutes protecting women against prejudice is one of the recent laws adopted to ensure that there is fairness when dealing with all workers. EAW doctrine gives some of the legal frameworks to guide legal probes on the employment contract. The doctrine has four major exceptions which influence the decisions adopted by the courts when dealing with such cases. Federal laws emphasize that all workers are eligible for compensation regardless of whether they are documented or not. Such legal articulations are commendable since all workers should be treated fairly.

References

Chen, M. H. (2012). Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit· Bureaucratic Politics in Federal Workplace Agencies Serving Undocumented Workers. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 33(2), 227.

Fitzpatrick, J.. J. J., Perine, J. L., Dutton, B., & Floyd, K. (2011). State labor legislation enacted in 2010. Monthly Labor Review, 134(1), 3.

Werhane, P. H., & Radin, T. J. (2013). Employment at Will. International Encyclopedia of Ethics.