|  |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Printable Version
E-mail to a Friend
APA | MLA | |
Legal Issues in Reduction of Workforce Simulation
Legal Issues in Reduction of Workforce Simulation
University of Phoenix
Enterprise Risk
MBA/560
Kathleen Butler, Instructor
March 24, 2008
Introduction
Fastserve Inc, is a 25 million strong company involved in the direct marketing of branded sports apparel. The company opened up two online marketing and distribution channels. One is
www.fastserve4boys .com and the other is www.fastserve4 girls.com. 10% of the workforce was moved to manage the online distribution. Soon after the website went live, technologies begin to pose problems for Fastserve. The 3-D mannequins on the site did attract the market, however; they were so cumbersome to download and buyers were not making enough purchases to maintain the technology investment. This caused Fastserve to move out of the online distribution.
In this simulation, my role is as a senior management in Human Resource. I will need to implement decision of the top management in a way that translates into maximum benefits for the company. I will also need to consider the legal implications of my decisions on the company. I will need to decide and communicate the news to the chosen employees within a week. I have five employees that must layoff three.
The five employees are Carl Haimes, Brian Carter, Sarah Boyd, Nora Manson, and Jenny Mills. See Figure 1 on page 3 that illustrates a comparison of all five being considered.
Figure 1:
Comparison
| |Haimes |Carter |Boyd |Manson |Mills |
|Overall Track Record |Above Average |Average |Average |Above Average |Average |
|Productivity |Above |Median |Median |Below Median |Median |
| |Median | | | | |
|Special Achievements |None |Solely responsible for |None |Saved two big |None |
| | |3-D mannequins | |accounts | |
|Educational |BS in Information |Advanced certificate in|None |Trained in Public |BS in Public |
| |Systems |VC++ & VSP | |Speaking |Relations |
|Skill Set Job Responsibility |Computer systems, |Programming VC++, |Agency Traffic |Handling customers |Handling customer |
| |LAN installation |HTML/Oracle |Management |complaints |inquiry |
|Absenteeism |No Problem |17 days in the last two|12 days in the last |Cumulative of 2 |14 days in the last |
| | |months |two months |months |month |
|Status |Contract |Contract |Full-time |Contract |Contract |
Source: Legal Issues in Reduction of Workforce Simulation, University of Phoenix,
Week three, found at URL of http://mycampus.phoenix.edu
The five employees are Carl Haimes, Brian Carter, Sarah Boyd, Nora Manson, and Jenny Mills. See Figure 1 on page
The three was chosen: Brian, Nora, Jenny
Nora: her performance and productivity are continuing areas of concern for management.
Attorney: She will cause a problem and expect that she will say that race was the issue and file a discrimination claim
Related Resource: Civil Rights of 1964 were to bring African Americans and other minorities into the mainstream of America. Title VII of the Act deals with employment practices.
Mills: five months pregnant. Taking more breaks
Attorney: If it is the breaks, this will lead to an EEOC problem because of the protections of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Call Center Supervisor: Lay her off as she has been missing calls in the call center and taking a lot of breaks.
Related Resource: Under the Act, an employee cannot force a woman to stop working until her baby is born provided that she can do her job.
Brian: Has carpal tunnel syndrome, annoyed with his continues absence
Head of Technology: He will not fit into the new of the position.
Carter’s Colleague: He has a been a real pain.
Related Resource: ADA, must make reasonable accommodation
Results: You have done a good job. You have met your initial objective of laying off three employees to a large extent. I did not make optimal use of the HR records.
Conclusion:
Discharging an employee for reasons related to race, sex, ago, religion, disability, national origin, and in some locations, sexual orientation, may constitute unlawful discrimination. Discrimination laws apply to employees who have been terminated or undergone other undesirable employment decisions, and such employees can file claims against their current ot former employees with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an authorized state or local agency.
The EEOC enforces federal employment discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Ace, and the American with Disabilities Act. Sound organization policies and practices on hiring, firing, sexual harassment, discipline, and promotions provide the opportunity for employees to take positive steps to avoid claims of discrimination.
Sarah Boyd of 15 years with FastServe was the first employee to be let go. She was given an acceptable severance package for her hard work during those times. The attorney for FastServe was concerned that she would sue for age discrimination since she was over 40 years old. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity, according to the website http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm, there are several laws, such as the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance” (if FastServe did business with the Government) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) which “protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” The attorney for Sarah would have to prove that the company violated one of the statues above and have to prove with evidence: emails, employees, and previous history patterns. The company would have to prove that there is a business need to lay off Sarah, which there was. The online business failed.
The facts around Jenny Mills are apparent; she is five months pregnant. However, just as the Jenny is not required to tell a potential employer that she is pregnant, because the job she is interviewing for is based on the right qualifications for the position, the FastServe does not have to consider her pregnancy when laying her off due to an established business need. Though this tends to seem cold or heartless, her pregnancy had nothing to do with whether or not the company failed.
Jenny will most likely file discrimination papers with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) based on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978. According to http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/womensresources/a/pregnant_2.htm, “Women affected by pregnancy or related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar (temporary) abilities or limitations.” FastServe is treating Jenny just like any other employee and their decision to lay her off. This includes the business decision, her skills are non-critical to the company that is left. As long as there is appropriate documentation demonstrating that Jenny is being treated as any other employee, there is no case for Jenny.
Brian Carter is our third layoff victim. His key facts is that he is suffer from carpet tunnel syndrome and hence, provides a question of whether he is being fired because of a business need or his disability. Brian is protected under the ADA, or Americans with Disabilities Act. ADA of 1990 is a large civil rights law that would also fall under the EEOC. According to http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html “ prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” Furthermore the ADA covers:
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
