Employment law involves regulations that govern the relationship between employers and employees. Primarily, these laws ensure workers' protection from violation of their rights while the contract agreement is valid. In most cases, workers find themselves in situations that violate their rights to safe environments. These laws are meant to ensure health, safety from risks, protection of workers from causes of harm, and protection from Employees themselves. The regulations provide that employees who find themselves cornered by circumstances beyond their control are safe from their employers' malicious action or bias ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). One of the critical areas of employment laws is wrongful dismissal from work, which renders employees jobless against the terms agreed upon or the legal procedure for termination of the contract, which may lead to various ethical issues.
Dismissal from employment
Dismissal from employment is a phrase used to mean the termination of a contract or agreement between two parties of the job. In the event of termination, the employee ceases to work for the employer. Some various acts and laws are used to define the process through which a human resource manager may terminate the contract on behalf of the employer. Mostly, according to the employment act, contract termination may be initiated by either of the parties of employment ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ). There are cases in which termination may be termed as legal and binding. For instance, in the case where the agreed period of contract has lapsed, both parties are presumed to have agreed to terminate the relationship with the option of renewing or not if the time has ended.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In some cases, the employee may be compelled to resign from their own volition without being coerced by their employer. The employee may end the relationship through resignation. They are not satisfied with employment conditions or where their health dictates they take a break from work and active duties. This termination is also allowed in the case of an employee who is not compliant with the company's regulations, thus prompting the employer to dismiss the worker ( Arnardóttir et al., 2018 ). Any deviation from these situations, which also includes the death of the employee or the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer, is in contravention of the employment laws that protect an employee against wrongful termination.
There have been various situations where wrongful termination occurs, and the employee has the right to move to court to ensure protection, accommodation, and reinstatement. Essentially, the legal age of employment is, in most cases, 18 years and above with an exception for people of 65 years who are legible for retirement. An employer should not employ minors, but in the event where minors are employed through coercion or concealment of information, the employment should be terminated. In most cases, wrongful termination occurs on disability, race, age, and gender. Title VII of the civil rights act, for instance, prohibits termination based on one's ethnic background or age ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). This indicates that all employees must be allowed to work on the grounds of merit. On the other hand, the employer has the right to evaluate employees to ensure that they benefit from the disabled employee. The inability to perform duties is enough ground for termination.
One of the most common instances of wrongful termination involves termination by the employer on the grounds of employee's health or physical disability. The ADA protects employees with both mental and physical disabilities against being dismissed wrongfully. Essentially, employees must be allowed to work as long as their health does not affect their performance at work. On the other hand, the OSHA stipulates that part of the employer's responsibilities is to ensure that employees are safe. This fact means that employers have to provide conditions that protect disabled employees from risk, such as putting up ramps ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). Hence, the employer must accommodate disabled employees by ensuring safety precautions without consideration of dismissal.
Case study
In 2016 Glynn, a driver working for Allergan's pharmaceutical company had an accident that caused eye problems leading to eye-related disability. As a result of the accident and subsequent eye problem, he was granted leave to recuperate. Glynn applied for a transfer to a less involving assignment that did not require good eyesight. Through the department of benefits, the company sent him a letter of termination after ignoring his applications for –transfer ( Willborn et al., 2017 ). The company claimed that Glynn had exceeded leave time and that he was eligible for long term disability benefits.
This termination goes against the ADA regulations as the employee was suffering physical disability, making him eligible for protection under the act. Essentially, the act stipulates that a disabled employee may voluntarily disclose their condition to their employer. Glynn fulfilled this by voluntarily informing the company, which is not a federal employer. The employer contravened the regulations by failing to grant their employee transfer to a more accommodating assignment. Necessarily, the employer must ensure that the employee works under favorable conditions due to such disability ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). Considering that Glynn had not shown an inability to perform, the employer was wrong to terminate the employment.
One of the ethical issues that are evident in this case is the disclosure of employees' medical information. Critically, the benefits department's action to list him under long-term disability indicates that Glynn's medical information to the human resource department in his various applications was accessed by a third party. The letter of termination was sent by a temporary employee, which indicates the level of disclosure of medical information. As a disabled employee and patient, Glynn's information should have been treated as confidential. Additionally, the wrongful representation of facts by the employer by claiming that the employee was eligible for benefits was unethical. The employer should have evaluated the employee's ability to perform other duties as a way of ensuring accommodation for a disabled employee ( Kavanagh & McRae, 2017 ). It is important to note that termination of employment is only justified where the employee is unable to perform with or in the absence of accommodation. In this case accommodation includes lighter duties that do not require reliance on eyes and creation of safety measures for a person with eye disability in the work station. Arguably, based on these ethical and legal issues, the employee deserves reinstatement and full financial responsibility on the part of the employer as later ordered by the court.
In conclusion, employment law ensures that the employer and employee are protected from losses related to a poor relationship and the violation of employee's rights. In essence, it is critical to consider that disability does not necessarily allow an employer to dismiss an employee from employment. The case of Glynn presents both legal and ethical issues that require guidance of the employment laws and particularly the ADA and civil rights act.
References
Arnardóttir, O. M., Hotvedt, M. J., Nousiainen, K., & Ventegodt, M. (2018). Nordic disability employment laws and policies in a human rights perspective. In Youth, Diversity and Employment . Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kavanagh, M., & McRae, E. (2017). Employment law: Protecting vulnerable workers amendment to fair work act. Governance Directions , 69 (4), 241.
Willborn, S. L., Schwab, S. J., Burton Jr, J. F., & Lester, G. L. (2017). Employment law: Cases and materials . Carolina Academic Press.
