DATE: July 9th, 2018
TO: Vice President of Big Brain Solutions
FROM:
SUBJECT: Liz Bennett and Ralph Nickleby
Purpose
This memo provides a legal assessment of Ms. Bennett’s pending court case and Mr. Nickleby’s arbitration concerning the two former employers of Big Brain Solutions. It answers questions on whether the two cases meet the threshold for a hearing in a court of law. Bennett’s case was filed under the Family and Medical Leave Acts while Nickleby decided to go through an arbitration process. A detailed analysis of the possible outcomes if the two cases go through an arbitration process is also provided.
Background Information
The standard employment contracts signed by Bennett and Nickleby state that binding arbitration will decide disputes concerning actions by the employer and employee. Big Brain Solutions allowed the two administrative assistants to go through the details of the contract with their attorneys before they could be signed. Bennett's grievances arise from the elimination of her position due to a reorganization process at a period when she was on medical leave. Soon after getting hired by Big Brain Solutions, Bennett became pregnant, and the pregnancy led to complications that prompted her to take a medical leave. The company granted her a medical leave but a reorganization process during the same period led to the elimination of her position. Bennett’s lawsuit against the company is filed under the Family Medical Leave Act (FLMA). Nickleby’s employment termination is the reason for his decision to file a case with an arbitrator. The company suspected that Nickleby was addicted to cocaine and required that he takes a mandatory drug test. His refusal and eventual termination of employment came immediately after Bennett’s case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hearing by a Court
A court of law can hear none of Nickleby’s and Bennett's grievances. Federal Arbitration Act and the California Arbitration Act stipulate that such disputes be heard through an arbitrator. The employment contracts that the two administrative assistants signed specifies that an arbitrator will hear all employment disputes. Bennett's decision to pursue litigation against Big Brain Solutions is not best suited for her interests due to the contract that she had earlier signed. It is almost certain that the court will not hear her case but will otherwise submit it for arbitration owing to the terms agreed between her and Big Brain Solutions concerning dispute resolution through binding arbitration. Nickleby’s case, on the other hand, has a better chance of a hearing in a court of law despite it being already submitted for litigation. The basis for a legal suit against the company would be wrongful termination of employment. However, the fact that Nickleby had signed a contract with an arbitration clause means that the case will remain under arbitration. If heard in an arbitration, the verdict will likely favor Nickleby since it is illegal to force workers to take drug tests for non-safety jobs. Bennet’s case will also favor her if it is taken through arbitration based on the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (CFHA).
Arbitration Process
Liz Bennett
State laws in California prohibit any form of discrimination against pregnant women by their employers with respect to training, compensation or upholding of the employment contract (Rukin Hyland, 2014). Laws protecting the interests of pregnant women are the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the Pregnancy Disability Act (PDA), and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA section 12945). FEHA section 12945 states that a woman is eligible for a medical leave when she falls pregnant and has a right to be reinstated in the same position as before after the leave. CFRA and FMLA guarantee employees a twelve-week job-protect, unpaid medical or family leave (Rukin Hyland, 2014). Employees are also entitled to pregnancy disability leave even if they do not qualify under either FMLA or the CFRA. Employers who fail to adhere to these requirements are held liable at any given time. In this regard, Bennett’s arbitration will base on the provisions in this laws.
Several factors are necessary for a court to submit a case for arbitration. Since Bennett had already filed a legal suit against Big Brain Solutions, these factors will be considered before the process is started. The absence of one or more of these requirements will void the whole arbitration process. A disagreement must exist between the parties in the arbitration. Certainly, there is a disagreement between Bennet and the company emanating from the termination of her employment after she had taken an approved pregnancy disability leave. Big Brain Solutions holds their firm to its side of the argument that a reorganization was the cause of the employment termination hence there is no discrimination directed towards Bennett. Ms. Bennett, on the other hand, feels that the pregnancy played a part in the company’s decision to terminate her employment hence the law protects her against such eventualities.
Secondly, a stipulation for arbitration should be provided in the contract. The contract signed by Bennett at the time she was hired stipulated that disputes relating to employment practices and the actions of the company will be solved through a binding arbitration process. This provision ties the company and Bennett to an arbitration process that will solve the existing dispute. Hence, an arbitrator is better placed to find an amicable solution in the case. Thirdly, evidence must exist of an arbitration stipulation. In this case, the written contract signed by Bennett is enough proof of an existing arbitration stipulation. Finally, one of the parties should have neglected an arbitration process. Bennett failed to attempt arbitration and instead opted for a court case. By considering the four requirements, an arbitration process will likely be ordered by the court. Therefore, the outcome of the arbitration process will base on the period of Bennett's stay in the company, the basis for her medical leave and the reasons for termination of her employment.
Big Brain Solutions approved Ms. Bennett's FMLA leave before her position was eliminated when she was yet to report back at the company. It is vital to establish the eligibility of Ms. Bennett for the approved leave according to the FMLA at the time that the leave was granted. FMLA offers benefits to employees based on the period that they have been employed and the number of workers that they have worked (Zachary, 2014). The minimum requirements are that the employee must have worked for twelve months with a combined total of more than 1250 hours during the same period (Gordon, 2016). The provided information, in this case, makes it challenging to ascertain whether Bennett meets the conditions for FMLA at the time that her leave was approved. The arbitrator's decision on the matter will base on the findings under this provision. If Bennett had worked for more than twelve months with the total hours exceeding the minimum required, the arbitrator would decide on reinstatement and compensation for the time that she was unemployed. If the period that she had worked does not meet the minimum requirements for FMLA, the arbitrator may rule in favor of Big Brain Solutions or use other provisions to make a final decision.
However, the information provided that Bennett worked at the company for several months does not guarantee a decision on reinstatement or revocation of the medical leave. Hence, the arbitrator will look for extra information regarding Bennett’s employment period and the number of hours worked. A ruling in favor of the company will not require restructuring in order to reinstate Bennett to her initial position.
Ralph Nickleby
Eligibility for the case going through the arbitration process will base on the four mandatory requirements that will be established before the process begins. Establishment of the existence of a dispute between Nickleby and Big Brain Solutions is the first step. The dispute is about Nickleby’s alleged wrongful termination of employment by the company. The company, on the other hand, holds that the employee refused to take a drugs test. The second requirement, a stipulation for arbitration, is provided in the contract signed by Nickleby. Binding arbitration is provided for in the contract, requiring an arbitration process to solve disputes concerning actions by the company. Nickleby’s decision to submit the case for arbitration is prudent considering the requirements of his contract. The written and the signed contract also provides evidence of the agreement. Finally, he has decided to file the case with an arbitrator hence all the four requirements are met, and the case will go on.
Several issues regarding drug testing at the workplace will guide the decision of the arbitrator. Organizations that implement drug testing policies require that their employees take these tests in order to maintain safety in the workplace and also as an insurance method (University of Minnesota, n.d). The ADA protects people with certain disabilities from wrongful termination of employment due to drug use although proof must be provided of the prescription (the University of Minnesota, n.d). The protection only applies to people with disabilities, and illegal drugs are not covered. In the case of Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, several employees were fired for using prescription drugs (University of Minnesota, n.d). The employer argued that the drugs caused impairment while the employees claimed that the ADA covered their interests. The employer won since the employee could not provide any proof of disability. Similarly, if the arbitrator bases their decision on the fact that cocaine use causes impairment the ruling will favor Big Brain Solutions. This is however unlikely since there was no proof that Nickleby’s performance was poor at the time of the surprise drug test.
Alternatively, employee privacy is covered under the Fourth Amendment. The fourth amendment to the American constitution prohibits unreasonable searches on individuals (Smentkowski, n.d). Nickleby’s decision to refuse to take the surprise drug test might be argued under the fourth amendment laws. The law protects him against unreasonable searches hence the decision to exercise this right. Thus, the final decision will favor him based on this constitutional provision. However, if the company policy provides requires employees take drug tests for safety and insurance purposes then the drug test will not be a violation of his constitutional right. Big Brain Solutions must provide evidence to support the company policy argument in that case. Therefore, the outcomes of the case will rely on the policy of the company. If the company lacks policies on drug testing, the arbitrator will rule in favor of the employee thus the company will have to reinstate Nickleby and also pay compensation. Again, if it is found that Nickleby was exercising his Fourth Amendment rights, the decision will favor him. Furthermore, no evidence was found Nickleby’s poor performance before the test was requested, hence the arbitrator decision is likely to go against Big Brain Solutions.
References
Gordon, J. M.W. (2016). Business law: An introduction . Unidentified location: Business Professor, Inc.
Rukin Hyland. (2014). What to expect from your California employer when you’re expecting. Rukin Hyland. Retrieved on 9 July 2018, from https://www.rhdtlaw.com/expect-california-employer-youre-expecting/
Smentkowski, B. (n.d). Fourth Amendment . Retrieved on 9 July 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourth-Amendment
University of Minnesota. (n.d). Privacy Rights in Employment.
Zachary, M. (2014). Restrictions may apply to FMLA leave. Supervision, 75 (2), 23-26.
