Employment discrimination laws safeguard workers from exploitation and inequitable treatment at the workplace. Discrimination at the workplace may occur directly through open unjust treatment or indirectly through employment rules and standards. The federal government prohibits employees' unfair treatment based on specific protected characteristics, including, race, faith, age, disability, sexuality, marital status, parenthood, gender reassignment, and pregnancy (Douglas & Smith, 2016). Employers are known to impose a provision, condition, principle, or exercise that disadvantages some workers with protected characteristics that may discriminating against them. Other employers harass some employees through bias in work delegation, promotion, remuneration, reprisals, hiring, and termination. Most employees also confirm to have been victimized by their employers because of raising discrimination complaints.
Recent Legislation that protects Employees from Discrimination in the Workplace
The US constitution safeguards its citizens from being deprived of life, property, and freedom without due judicial process. The constitution further ensures that the law equally protects all citizens. Put differently, each citizen has a right to procedural guarantees and equal protection by the law (Douglas & Smith, 2016). Narrowing down to the workplace context, an individual's right to equal protection by the law prohibits discriminatory treatment of current, former, and prospective employees. The right to procedural guarantees, on the other hand, ensures that appropriate procedures are followed during hiring and termination of employment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The US Federal government banned employment discrimination on age basis through enacting the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which explicitly provides remuneration, retirement benefit, and pension guidelines. The US Supreme Court simplified ADEA into three separate parts in 2007/2008. First, unequal treatment claims charged under the ADEA now require evidence of discriminatory intent and motive behind the scheme that led to the alleged prejudice (Button, 2020). Second, employees who file a complaint against the violation of ADEA within a 2-months timeline may proceed to table a lawsuit as long as they have met the statute of limitations. Third, offended employees can now file a private lawsuit for retribution under the ADEA against federal employers.
The US Congress passed a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 2008 to protect employees against discrimination appertaining to their genetic information. The Parliament Act, implemented and enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), inhibits insurance firms and organizations from using employees' genetic information in making individual decisions (Douglas & Smith, 2016). The Act bars group health schemes and medical insurers from refuting medical covers to healthy individuals. Furthermore, the Act prohibits health insurers from extorting high premiums from individuals whose genetic structure predisposes them to acquire some disease infection later in life. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act finally hinders employers from using genetic information to hire, fire, place, and promote employees.
State legislations tend to provide more excellent protection than federal legislation as states modify the federal laws to fit that particular population's requirements. None the less, the federal government mandates states to abide by the federal legislations when changing federal laws. Concerning minimum wage requirements, for instance, the federal regulations set a specific floor remuneration rate. However, states may set minimum wage thresholds higher than the national floor wage rate but not lower. Many countries have also established laws that prevent employers from mandating employees to subscribe to workers' unions to secure employment. Such statutes give all state members a default right to work. However, there exist no federal regulations on the right to employment.
Employment at Will (EAW) Doctrine
Employment at Will is a contract between an employer and an employee whereby either party has a right to terminate the job at any given time without any legal consequences. Accordingly, the employment term is indefinite, and both parties can alter the terms of employment without notice and consequences (Bodie, 2017). While employees are free to resign whenever they get better opportunities elsewhere or feel uncomfortable with the job, the employers have a right to fire, demote, promote, or change employment terms. However, the EAW presumption has harsh consequences that the judiciary has tried to streamline over the years by carving out certain exceptions to the doctrine.
Exceptions to EAW Doctrine consist of Public policy, good faith agreement, written/implied contracts, and trade unions/collective bargaining units (Bodie, 2017). The public policy exception acknowledges the provisions of all other federal laws and regulations, whereby it ranks second in a judicial proceeding after a given federal law. On the other hand, the good faith agreement requires employers and employees to respect each other's rights and freedoms by acting fairly and forthrightly towards each other. Certain postulations in an employment contract regarding duties, responsibilities, and operation standards undercut EAW doctrine (Bodie, 2017). Similarly, the principle can be undermined by certain implied statements inadvertently expressed in work practice, mere conversations, or promises. Finally, employees in trade unions and collective bargain unions are not subjected to EAW doctrine since such unions have private rules and regulations that provide employment and operation guidelines.
Brenda’s decision to fire the employee was ill-advised as the unjust termination of employment amounts to harassment and victimization. All the employee was trying to do was raise a complaint against the discriminatory treatment in the workplace, whereby there existed a bias in the remuneration criteria. At-will employment may not justify Brenda's decision to fire her employee due to the public policy exception to the EAW doctrine. Workplace antidiscrimination laws come first, followed by the EAW doctrine; hence the employee lawsuit against wrongful termination form employment will be successful.
Jason’s step of seeking permission to fire Alice was wise. As the department supervisor, Jason must have noticed Alice’s incapability to do her duties and responsibilities well by failing to adhere to the work structure. The at-will employment doctrine favors Jason in this case. Alice's attempt to sue the company for wrongful termination of employment will not be successful as the written contract exception to the EAW doctrine still favors Jason's decision.
Brian has no reasonable grounds for terminating Lori's employment, and hence that verdict is imprudent. The jury duty mandates Lori to appear before the court less; he is held in contempt. The use of EAW doctrine by Brian as a basis of justifying Lori's firing is undermined by the public policy exception to EAW doctrine whereby the right to serve as a juror comes first before the right to exercise at-will employment. Lori’s lawsuit for unfair termination from employment will hence be successful.
In Peter's case, his boss's decision to terminate his employment is thoughtful and intelligent. In this case, the boss has a right to exercise his EAW doctrine right without fear of facing any consequences from that decision. On the other hand, Peter has no basis for filing a lawsuit against his boss for job termination because he would not be able to prove the intention and motive of employment discrimination through firing. Furthermore, the good faith covenant exception to the EAW doctrine favors his boss.
Federal Laws Regarding Undocumented Workers
Federal employment legislations protect all employees from discrimination in the workplace irrespective of the immigration status as long as the employer has more than 15 workers. Undocumented workers are specially protected by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which bars biased recruitment, placement, and firing based on citizenship status (Trombetta, 2017). INA also prohibits discrimination in employment based on country of birth. Prejudicial document practices in verifying the employment qualification process, including online verification processes, are moreover inhibited by INA.
Undocumented workers in the United States qualify for workers' compensation mainly because they are specifically included in the states’ laws. Nonetheless, the masses argue that such workers should not be eligible for workers' compensation majorly because they are not authorized to work in the state (Trombetta, 2017). I advocate for undocumented workers' compensation, just like other workers in the country, especially for work-related injuries and losses. As long as the undocumented individual works for a particular employer and has suffered a work-related illness, the individual should be entitled to an insurance program funded by the employer. After all, the employers are first required to ascertain employment eligibility by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) before recruiting any non-resident worker (Trombetta, 2017). Once employers violate the IRCA provision when recruiting workers, they should not refuse to pay undocumented workers' compensation because they were not authorized to work in the country.
References
Bodie, M. T. (2017). The Best Way Out Is Always Through: Changing the Employment At-Will Default Rule to Protect Personal Autonomy. U. Ill. L. Rev. , 223.
Button, P. (2020). Population aging, age discrimination, and age discrimination protections at the 50th anniversary of the age discrimination in employment act. In Current and Emerging Trends in Aging and Work (pp. 163-188). Springer, Cham.
Douglas, T. J., & Smith, R. A. (2016). Identifying as LGBT in America: Discrimination In The Work Place and Labor Market.
Trombetta, C. (2017). The Undocumented Workers Dilemma: Improving Workplace Rights for Undocumented Workers through Labor Arbitration and Collective Bargaining. Geo. Immigr. LJ , 32 , 127.
