The Value of Fair Treatment in the workplace

The Value of Fair Treatment in the workplace

Legislations that help protect employees from discrimination in the workplace

Discrimination is the act of unfair treatment or prejudice against another person on grounds of race, age or sex. This has been a rampant issue in the workplace and federal laws have been put in place in order to deal with this issues ensuring fair treatment among each and every employee in the workplace. There was a time when employees worked at the mercy of their employers. They worked under harsh working conditions with no laws to protect their rights. In the 20^th century, the motion on employee rights was pushed and it gained momentum leading to its adaptation in companies to this day.

The Affordable Care Act, which was passed in 2010, focuses on ensuring that employees get full health coverage during their time of work. It is the companies’ role to provide a minimum level of health insurance for a full time employee. To qualify as a full time employee, an individual has to work for at least 30 hours a week. Employers are getting malicious by cutting workers hours below 30hours in order to avoid the mandate of providing the employees with health insurance. This is purely unfairness and malice towards the employee, but the law ensures that the workers’ rights are upheld. However, it has been noted that health insurance coverage ties employees to jobs. This phenomenon is known as “job lock” (Gruber & Madrian, 2002). Due to federal law, it better to take group insurance of about 20 people rather than individual premiums (Fairlie et’al, 2011)

The Whistleblower Protection Act is also a federal law put in place to protect employees who engage in “whistleblowing” in companies. It was enacted by the 101^st United States Congress in April 10^th, 1989. If an employer is reported by any employee, they are prone to get dismissed from work without proper cause which is a show of discrimination. Therefore, this act protects employees from their employers. Forms of discrimination against employee include; the employer’s hostile attitude towards employee’s protected conduct, termination procedure, threats or retaliation against other employees.

Employment- at- will Doctrine and the exceptions

Employment at will refers to an agreement stating that employment is for an indefinite period of time and may be terminated either by the employer or the employee at free will. If employment terms are at-will, this must be included in the relevant employment contract. In the United States, a contract is necessary. This is to protect any employee from being fired for good cause, for bad cause or for no cause at all. In general, this is to prevent wrongful termination. The doctrine also carries along exceptions. Namely; Implied Contract Exception, Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Public Policy Exception (Collective Bargaining Agreements, Company Policy), Statutory Protections For Employees.

Each state recognizes varied exceptions to the principle of employment at will.

1. Implied Contract Exception- this states that the employer employee relationship is a contract and cannot be undone no matter the cause. An employer may verbalize the assurances to the employee and this should be in line with the employer’s handbooks, policies, practices and other written assurances. All these may create an implied contract.
2. Public Policy Exception –this protects employees against adverse employment actions that work against public interest. It is the most widely recognized common law exception to the at-will doctrine. Employers are prohibited from firing employees who have filed claims for workers compensation, whistleblowers or employees who fail to involve themselves in illegal businesses (NSCL, Acc,2019)
3. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing- from the judicial interpretation of this covenant, it is an exception that works towards just and fair treatment of employees regardless of the offence or situation. (NCSL, Acc,2019) It prohibits terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice both by the employer and other employees. Examples of bad faith terminations include; firing an elderly employee to avoid paying retirement benefits. Whenever a covenant has been inferred, a court looks for factors including whether the company followed the stated personnel policies.

In relation to the first scenario, the decision to fire the employee is not a smart one. This is because it’s acting against the religious beliefs of the employee. This is in alignment with the public policy exception that protects employees against discrimination from race, gender and religious affiliation.

In the second scenario, even though the employee was protesting against salaries and benefits, employment at will involves a contract that must be adhered to. In this case missing work without probable cause was a breach of the contract in relation to the policies. Therefore it was partly right to fire the employee

In the third scenario, parental leave according to company policy is eligible to pay in most countries. In most states, the employer should receive an 8 week notice prior in order to plan for the leave. Therefore, it is the employees’ rights to receive the paid leave. This is in relation to the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair dealing. It’s not wise to terminate the employee.

In the fourth scenario, the employee has a liver disease but it’s aggravated by the chemicals in the workplace. Instead of firing the employee, it’s the employers’ role to provide health insurance for all employees. Firing the employee is discrimination against the employee due to his health and he has a right to sue the employer. This is according to the Affordable Care Act, which is the companies’ duty to provide.

Law in regard to Undocumented Workers and Eligibility for State Workers’ Compensation in the United States

When a worker gets injured on the job, he or she is automatically entitled to workers’ compensation.  Disparity, however, arises when the worker is a person who does not have legal rights to work in a country should receive work compensation. Compensation comes in form of payment of medical bills, rehabilitation of the injured worker e.g. physical therapy or psychological therapy depending on the mode of injury or setback. This is regardless of their documentation status. According to (Anderson et’al, 2000) Hispanic workers who are undocumented face frequent injuries in the workplace and due to the state law policy, it is the right of every employee to receive compensation.

I advocate for this practice due to the fact that life must be preserved. America is country of opportunity and immigration is highly rampant. Burden should not be shifted to the injured workers. There should be easier access and more assistance for immigrants. (Clibborn, 2015)

However, contrast comes in between the Immigration Act and State Law. The Immigration Act prohibits employment of undocumented immigrants. In the United States, an employer that hires an undocumented worker they are exposed to payment of a fine for each worker they have. On the other hand, State Law supports the fact that every worker has the right to employment regardless of their documentation status and they are all entitled to workers’ compensation.  Workers are all equal as they all contribute to the economy regardless of documentation status.

REFERENCES

1. Anderson JT, Hunting KL, Welch L. 2000. Injury and employment patterns among hispanic construction workers. J Occup Environ Med 42: 176-186
2. Charles J. Muhl, “The Employment- At- Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions,’ Monthly Labor Review (January2001)
3. Fairlie R.W.Kapur K. Gates S. (2011). Is employer-based health insurance a barrier to entrepreneurship? Journal of Health Economics .30, 146-162.
4. Gruber J. Madrian B. (2002). Health insurance, labor supply and job mobility: A critical review of the literature (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper # 8817).
5. Nadjia Limani, Note, “Rightful Wrongful Discharge: A Recommendation for the New York Judiciary to Adopt a Public Policy Exception to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine,” Cardoza Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal (January 2006)
6. org “Employment At-Will Exceptions by State, http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-exceptions-by-state.aspx,”Accessed Oct27, 2019.
7. Stephen Clibborn, The Economic and Labor Relations Review 26(3), 465-473,2015