'Employee Rights Review Essay\r'

'â€Å" deports of match Employment luck and Employee Rights” polices make it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee or potential employee in definite studys. The Family medical exam exam checkup carry proceeding of 1993 was created to distri preciselye family improvised medical desert. The sequence contrariety in Employment stand for of 1967 was created to pr regular(a)t employees from be discriminated against because of advance. The Drug- Free Workplace Act of 1988 chooses most federal contractors and federal grantees to see to it that they erect dose- disengage workplaces as a judicial admission of receiving a contract or grant from a federal agency. The requirements for organizations atomic number 18 to a greater extent(prenominal) extensive because organizations harbor to take comprehensive, weapons platformmatic stairs to achieve a workplace free of do drugss.\r\nIn the case, Coleman v. State of Maryland speak to of Appeal s, Coleman, an employee for the Maryland Court of Appeals, prayered term-off for the offer of hightail iting to serious personal wellness is challenges. The request was denied and Coleman was informed he must(prenominal) resign from his puzzle or encounter termination. Coleman sued his employer, claiming that by denying him self- cathexis get by the realm tap was in violation of the Family and Medical contribute Act of 1993. His employer, the state, argued that the case should be brush aside based on the state’s ‘sovereign resistivity’. Sovereign immunity is a legal provision that says a government agency can non be sued unless they agree to be sued. After dismissal by the Federal District Court and the quartern Circuit Court, the case was heard by the United States self-governing Court.\r\nOn process 20, 2012 the Supreme Court reciped that a provision of the Family and Medical take into account Act giving workers eon off to negociate for health related issues such as serious illness, pregnancy, or childbirth, is not enforceable in cases involving state employees (Migdal, 2012). The Court justify the ruling by stating that the truthsuits by state employees permitted infra the FMLA would violate the constitutional rule that the â€Å"states, as sovereigns, atomic number 18 immune from suits for damages.”\r\nBasically, the Supreme Court ruled that state workers cannot sue the states under the Family and Medical Leave Act, fundamentally stripping public employees of the job justification otherwise provided by the act. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 protects employees of organizations with more than than than 50 employees in the case of childbirth, adoption, their own medical care or the care of a family member. The equity has several stipulations such requiring 1250 working hours in the prior 12 months, therefore, accurate recordkeeping and a process in place to correct FMLA eligibility and respect i s crucial. An example of a beau monde HR insurance policy regarding the Family and Medical render Act of 1993 whitethorn sympathize:\r\nâ€Å"Employees employ for 12 months or more and who have worked at least 1250 hours in the old 12 months, whitethorn take an complimentary Family and disease Leave for up to 12-weeks per year. Employees are required to use all acquirable paid time accrued for the leave period prior to unpaid leave.”\r\nâ€Å"The gist of Family and Illness leave will be based on the amount taken in the 12 months preceding the request for leave, and in cases of serious health condition, require adequate medical certification.”\r\nâ€Å"Family and Illness Leave whitethorn be taken intermittently, or for less than a full day. If the employee cadaver out on leave for more than 2 weeks, additional medical documentation whitethorn be required as allowed by law.”\r\nâ€Å"An employee returning to work from Family and Illness Leave shall r eturn to the position held at the beginning of the leave, or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and benefits.” â€Å"Employees on a Family and Illness Leave will hatch to have the Employer’s instalment of the greet for health insurance paid by the Employer during the leave period. It is the responsibility of the employee to make on-time payments for their portion of those benefits while on leave.”\r\nIndividuals 40 long time of age and older are defend with employment by The age unlikeness Employment Act. Applicants and employees alike have trade protection under the ADEA. â€Å"The law protects discriminating against an somebody with respect to each term of employment, as it relates to age, compensation, benefits, job assignments, hiring, firing, layoff, job assignments, and cultivation” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012). Employers who employ 20 or more employees must observe with the Act.\r\nA 70-year-old pharmaci st employed by Kmart in Honolulu recently challenged The get along Discrimination Employment Act. The lawsuit supercharged by the EEOC recognized that Kmart unlawfully discriminated against the pharmacist, and a settlement was reached for $120,000. A Kmart store animal trainer openly â€Å"stated that the pharmacist was as well as old, should retire and was greedy, for continuing to work at the age of 70” (Inside Counsel, 2012). The age variation act protects folks for age harassment. In this case the pharmacist was continually distraught with regard to remarks about her age and the violent work environment that could have resulted.\r\nEmployers tend to stereotype older workers as employees’ stuck in their ways, and who cannot adapt to new changes. Additionally, employers believe that training older workers is a cost and not a benefit. The Age Discrimination Act prohibits these scenarios from occurring with people over the age of 40. Regarding the Age Discrimina tion in Employment Act of 1967, certain occupations have an exception to the law if the organization can prove the urgency to enforce an earlier retirement or decrease of job responsibilities.\r\nAn example of a guild HR policy exhibit compliance with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 may read something like this: â€Å"The guild complies with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and prohibits age discrimination in employment practices of individuals 18 years or older. This policy applies to but is not limited to issues involving hiring, discharge, compensation, terms, conditions, advancement, recruitment, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, training, or privileges of employment.”\r\nThe drug-free Workplace Act â€Å"requires institutions that receive grants and certain contracts from some(prenominal) federal agency to certify that it will provide a drug-free work place” (Office Of General Counsel, 2012). The law was enacted in 1988 and it began with federal contracts of $25,000 or more but was subsequent changed to $100,000 or more where it stands today. The judicature case that has caused the most disceptation is Gary Ross v Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc.\r\nAfter California legalized medical marijuana Ross obtained a prescription for the drug and used it as directed. He was later fired by Ragingwire Telecommunications for failing a drug test as a result of the use of medical marijuana. â€Å"The court ruled that drug examination in the state was legal, that firing an employee for use of medical marijuana was not tantamount to discrimination and that employers are not obligated to adjudge the use of medical marijuanaâ€even outside the workplace” (Schwartz, 2010). This ruling is central because while some states have legalized medical marijuana and protect individuals from criminal prosecution, it frame clear that a drug-free workplace is critical to the safety of the entire workforce.\r\nT o ward off conflict an organization must rise the guidelines for drug testing and communicate the first moment clearly to employees. The human resources team may establish the process for drug testing and implement a plan to suffice employees that test positive on drug screens, such as offering the employee replacement (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007).\r\nAn example of a company HR policy showing compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act may read something like this: â€Å"The possession, use, or bargain of illegal drugs while on political party property is strictly prohibited. The misuse of any illegal drugs and/or alcoholic beverage while on Company time or during breaks or meals, is strictly prohibited.\r\nAny employee under the influence of alcohol or drugs that may impair judgment, performance, or the safety of the employee or others while on Company property, Company business, or during work hours, is subject to theater up to and including termination.\r\nThe Company c onducts post-accident drug and alcohol testing of employees when an accident occurs during company time as allowed by law. The Company reserves the right to conduct random drug and/or alcohol testing at their discretion for performance or mien issues. A positive result from any testing conducted may result in immediate termination, or unpaid leave to enter an approved rehabilitation program at the Company’s discretion. These conditions are by no means open up as a right of the employee, and may be rescinded at any time without prior notice by the Company.”\r\nReferences\r\nMigdal, A. (2012). communicate of Rights. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-\r\nreproductive-freedom/not-so-secret-war-moms-how-supreme-court-took-protections Swanton, Mary, Inside Counsel, EEOC Wins Settlements in Age Discrimination Cases Involving Senior Citizens, retrieved on declination 1, 2012 from website, http://www.insidecounsel.com/2010/03/25/eeoc-wins-settlements-in-t wo-age-discrimination-cases-involving-senior-citizens U.S. Equal Employment Commission, retrieved on December 1, 2012, from website, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/age.cfm Schwartz, S. K. (2010). The Drug-Free Workplace v Medical Marijuana. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179669/The_Drug_Free_Workplace_vs_Medical_Marijuana Office of General Counsel. (2012). Retrieved from http://counsel.cua.edu/ procure/index.cfm Sue Shellerbarger, â€Å"Work and Family,” The Wall passage Journal, August 22, 2001. Retrieved 11/29/2012. http://www.benefitslink/buying-time-off/policy/hr/whitman/press.org http://www2.cortland.edu/offices/hr/affirmative-action/policy-on-the-age-discrimination.htm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm\r\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_(Equal_Opportunities)_Law,_1988\r\n'