Chapter 3 Case Study 1
Kimberlee Afzali
Professor Ali
Human Resource and Management
Case Study 1 Chapter 3
1) I feel that the need for a pet to accompany an individual is medically necessary and the right to have the pet in an environment such as a workplace shouldn’t pose an issue to the employer or employees as long as all can be accommodated for. Just because some feels or thinks that having an animal in a workplace environment is unsanitary or unjust for whatever reasons, doesn’t make it so. Especially if having the animal or pet is going to help productivity of an individual which in turn helps productivity for the company. We live in a time where people have more disabilities and the need to accommodate those disabilities need to be met without discrimination.
2) If I was an HR manager of a company the policies that I would set would be determines on what the company as a whole feels would be adequate. I believe the need for change should be met and why not become more sensitive to needs or wants of an employee(s). I would first hold monthly meetings on what employees feel or think, determining all needs for all individuals including those with allergies. Once the company as a whole can meet to an agreement I would then set forth in motion all the rules and regulations, such as having absolute sanitary maintenance, even suggesting that the employees can pay for this service if needed. Having a happy and whole company is vital to sufficiency and overall production standards.
3) The case for Elizabeth Booth would have be determined based on her needs. Since she literally needed the dog to help her I would have had no problem allowing her pet to accompany her. I would have however made sure that any individuals who were allergic to dogs could also be accommodated. Title I and Title V would of the American Disabilities Act as of 1990 protect qualified individuals from this sort of discrimination. Section 503 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, protects
Professor Ali
Human Resource and Management
Case Study 1 Chapter 3
1) I feel that the need for a pet to accompany an individual is medically necessary and the right to have the pet in an environment such as a workplace shouldn’t pose an issue to the employer or employees as long as all can be accommodated for. Just because some feels or thinks that having an animal in a workplace environment is unsanitary or unjust for whatever reasons, doesn’t make it so. Especially if having the animal or pet is going to help productivity of an individual which in turn helps productivity for the company. We live in a time where people have more disabilities and the need to accommodate those disabilities need to be met without discrimination.
2) If I was an HR manager of a company the policies that I would set would be determines on what the company as a whole feels would be adequate. I believe the need for change should be met and why not become more sensitive to needs or wants of an employee(s). I would first hold monthly meetings on what employees feel or think, determining all needs for all individuals including those with allergies. Once the company as a whole can meet to an agreement I would then set forth in motion all the rules and regulations, such as having absolute sanitary maintenance, even suggesting that the employees can pay for this service if needed. Having a happy and whole company is vital to sufficiency and overall production standards.
3) The case for Elizabeth Booth would have be determined based on her needs. Since she literally needed the dog to help her I would have had no problem allowing her pet to accompany her. I would have however made sure that any individuals who were allergic to dogs could also be accommodated. Title I and Title V would of the American Disabilities Act as of 1990 protect qualified individuals from this sort of discrimination. Section 503 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, protects