Weyland Prima Facie Case
Case 1
1. For Joe to establish a prima facie case for failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, he would need to substantiate the elements of such a claim.
a) The employee (Joe) has a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Joe became 100% deaf in both ears which is a disability defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b) The employee (Joe) informed the employer of his or her condition and requested an accommodation.
Joe’s employer was made aware of Joe’s disability following his accident. The WY medical staff reviewed Joe’s case after referred by his manager who indicated that there was no way possible to accommodate Joe’s disability.
c) There was an accommodation available that would have been effective …show more content…
The regularity of the additional work.
In this case, I don’t think that Johnson’s work is de minimis based on the above analysis.
4. Weyland’s policy against overtime does not mean that they do not have to pay the employee. However, Weyland was aware he was coming in one hour prior to his shift to perform preliminary duties, and, therefore, they do have to pay as this overtime does not fall under de minimis. Weyland should reiterate the “no overtime” policy to Johnson.
Case 3:
1. Weyland wishes to use cruise retreat tickets to employees as an incentive to those who select to receive their pension payout at $500 month. As both plans offer the ticket, an employer may terminate a defined benefit or a defined contribution plan, but may not reduce the benefit the employee has already accrued. They will be in violation of the ERISA if they attempt to do so retroactively. If they would like to make changes, they could only do so for plans going forward.
Battoni v. IBEW Local Union 102 Employee Pension Plan 594 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2010) http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_pension.html
Case …show more content…
The female crane worker must present evidence that an Weyland’s neutral policy, rule, or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a member of a protected class. In this case, Weyland’s neutral policy is that all crane operators must urinate over the side or back of their cranes instead of bathroom breaks. This rule has a negative impact on female crane workers who are members of a protected class. The policy was not job-related and had a disparate impact on women. The female crane operator was not able to prove a prima facia case of disparate treatment because Weyland had offered her other opportunities outside the crane operator’s position that would have allowed her to continue working. Thus, she could not show that she had been constructively
1. For Joe to establish a prima facie case for failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, he would need to substantiate the elements of such a claim.
a) The employee (Joe) has a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Joe became 100% deaf in both ears which is a disability defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b) The employee (Joe) informed the employer of his or her condition and requested an accommodation.
Joe’s employer was made aware of Joe’s disability following his accident. The WY medical staff reviewed Joe’s case after referred by his manager who indicated that there was no way possible to accommodate Joe’s disability.
c) There was an accommodation available that would have been effective …show more content…
The regularity of the additional work.
In this case, I don’t think that Johnson’s work is de minimis based on the above analysis.
4. Weyland’s policy against overtime does not mean that they do not have to pay the employee. However, Weyland was aware he was coming in one hour prior to his shift to perform preliminary duties, and, therefore, they do have to pay as this overtime does not fall under de minimis. Weyland should reiterate the “no overtime” policy to Johnson.
Case 3:
1. Weyland wishes to use cruise retreat tickets to employees as an incentive to those who select to receive their pension payout at $500 month. As both plans offer the ticket, an employer may terminate a defined benefit or a defined contribution plan, but may not reduce the benefit the employee has already accrued. They will be in violation of the ERISA if they attempt to do so retroactively. If they would like to make changes, they could only do so for plans going forward.
Battoni v. IBEW Local Union 102 Employee Pension Plan 594 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2010) http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_pension.html
Case …show more content…
The female crane worker must present evidence that an Weyland’s neutral policy, rule, or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a member of a protected class. In this case, Weyland’s neutral policy is that all crane operators must urinate over the side or back of their cranes instead of bathroom breaks. This rule has a negative impact on female crane workers who are members of a protected class. The policy was not job-related and had a disparate impact on women. The female crane operator was not able to prove a prima facia case of disparate treatment because Weyland had offered her other opportunities outside the crane operator’s position that would have allowed her to continue working. Thus, she could not show that she had been constructively