Fmla Case Study Answers
Situation A:
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ensures that full time employees are able to preserve their jobs in the event that they must take extended amounts of time off for medical or family care. In reviewing the details in Situation A, it appears that the employer did not violate the Family Medical Leave Act.
In order to qualify for protection under FMLA, the employee must meet specific criteria. First, the employee must a full time employee that has worked for the employer a minimum of 1250 hours over the last 12 months (Provisions of the FMLA). In this situation Employee A is described as working for the company for over two years so we can assume that this qualification has been met. Second, the employee must have a valid reason for the leave to be covered under FMLA. FMLA covers a number of different causes for leave. In this situation, Employee A would qualify since leave for the birth and care of a newborn child is covered under FMLA. Third, the job restoration must be considered. FMLA allows a maximum of 12 weeks of job protection for most situations. The employee return to the same position held prior to the leave or an equivalent position. In Situation A, the employee was on leave for 11 months and requested to return to his same position.
In situation A, the employee has met the requirements to be covered under …show more content…
FMLA for job protection up to 12 weeks. In this situation, the employer has not violated the law since they have agreed to reinstate Employee A to his former position. The employer has the right to deny the back pay since FMLA does not require the employer to pay the employee’s salary during the leave. Employees are allowed to use sick time, vacation or other accrued time but if this is not available, the leave would be protected without pay.
Situation B:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1978 (ADEA) ensures that employers do not discriminate against employees or job applicants based on age. Any employee over the age of forty would qualify for protection under this Act. Any employer that has over 20 employees must comply with the ADEA rules (Johnson, Lau).
The employer described in Situation B would fall under ADEA rules since they have 75 employees. As Employee B is 68, he would qualify for protection under the ADEA.
In the given situation, I would assume that the employer has violated ADEA and has discriminated against Employee B. The situation describes that Employee B’s work performance was rated “above average” while the younger employee’s performance was only “adequate.” Unless the position granted to the younger employee had a “bona fide occupational qualification” that Employee B did not meet, it seems clear that the decision was made not on the merit of the applicants but on the age of the applicants.
Situation C:
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with further clarifications from The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 are designed to ensure that disabled applicants are not unfairly refused employment due to their limitations.
The Acts state that applicants must be able to perform the essential duties of a position. Applicants must meet the skill, experience, education and other requirements that are required of all applicants. An employer must be willing to make reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants. Accommodations can be refused if they create significant difficulty or expense for the employer (Johnson,
Lau).
In the details of Situation C, the employee was denied employment for the singular reason that it would cause the employer undue hardship. As this is the only reason that the employee was denied, I assume that the employee met all of the requirements to fulfill the essential duties of the position. In Situation C, the employer would have to show that the cost of moving the buttons on the elevator caused a significant financial hardship for the company. If the employer is unable to show that this is a financial hardship, it has violated the ADA.
Work Cited Page:
Lau, T., & Johnson, L. (n.d.). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business. N.p.: Flat World Education, Inc.
Provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act. (n.d.). In Skillsoft Brief. Retrieved January 31, 2015.
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ensures that full time employees are able to preserve their jobs in the event that they must take extended amounts of time off for medical or family care. In reviewing the details in Situation A, it appears that the employer did not violate the Family Medical Leave Act.
In order to qualify for protection under FMLA, the employee must meet specific criteria. First, the employee must a full time employee that has worked for the employer a minimum of 1250 hours over the last 12 months (Provisions of the FMLA). In this situation Employee A is described as working for the company for over two years so we can assume that this qualification has been met. Second, the employee must have a valid reason for the leave to be covered under FMLA. FMLA covers a number of different causes for leave. In this situation, Employee A would qualify since leave for the birth and care of a newborn child is covered under FMLA. Third, the job restoration must be considered. FMLA allows a maximum of 12 weeks of job protection for most situations. The employee return to the same position held prior to the leave or an equivalent position. In Situation A, the employee was on leave for 11 months and requested to return to his same position.
In situation A, the employee has met the requirements to be covered under …show more content…
FMLA for job protection up to 12 weeks. In this situation, the employer has not violated the law since they have agreed to reinstate Employee A to his former position. The employer has the right to deny the back pay since FMLA does not require the employer to pay the employee’s salary during the leave. Employees are allowed to use sick time, vacation or other accrued time but if this is not available, the leave would be protected without pay.
Situation B:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1978 (ADEA) ensures that employers do not discriminate against employees or job applicants based on age. Any employee over the age of forty would qualify for protection under this Act. Any employer that has over 20 employees must comply with the ADEA rules (Johnson, Lau).
The employer described in Situation B would fall under ADEA rules since they have 75 employees. As Employee B is 68, he would qualify for protection under the ADEA.
In the given situation, I would assume that the employer has violated ADEA and has discriminated against Employee B. The situation describes that Employee B’s work performance was rated “above average” while the younger employee’s performance was only “adequate.” Unless the position granted to the younger employee had a “bona fide occupational qualification” that Employee B did not meet, it seems clear that the decision was made not on the merit of the applicants but on the age of the applicants.
Situation C:
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with further clarifications from The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 are designed to ensure that disabled applicants are not unfairly refused employment due to their limitations.
The Acts state that applicants must be able to perform the essential duties of a position. Applicants must meet the skill, experience, education and other requirements that are required of all applicants. An employer must be willing to make reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants. Accommodations can be refused if they create significant difficulty or expense for the employer (Johnson,
Lau).
In the details of Situation C, the employee was denied employment for the singular reason that it would cause the employer undue hardship. As this is the only reason that the employee was denied, I assume that the employee met all of the requirements to fulfill the essential duties of the position. In Situation C, the employer would have to show that the cost of moving the buttons on the elevator caused a significant financial hardship for the company. If the employer is unable to show that this is a financial hardship, it has violated the ADA.
Work Cited Page:
Lau, T., & Johnson, L. (n.d.). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business. N.p.: Flat World Education, Inc.
Provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act. (n.d.). In Skillsoft Brief. Retrieved January 31, 2015.