28 Dec HRA545 Personnel Law and Ethics

HRA545 Personnel Law and Ethics

Module 3 Assignment

Case Assignment 3

Case #6 Van I. Irion, a Caucasian male who is a veteran of the United States Air Force, submitted an application for a position as a firefighter with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in September 2000.The process for obtaining a position as a firefighter with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District involves several steps, which are set forth in the county’s Personnel Management Regulations (“PMRs”). First, applicants are given a written test, a physical agility test, and an interview with the County Department of Human Resources, the results of which are combined to come up with a score for each applicant. In addition, a 5% Veterans’ Preference Credit is added to the scores of veterans who apply.The Interview Schedules indicate that Irion received a numeric rating of 4. The Interview Schedules also appear to indicate that at least two minority candidates with lower initial rankings and lower Chief’s Interview scores were hired—#24 who is identified as Hispanic and received a rating of 3, and #53 who is identified as “Asian or Pacific Islander” and received a 3-4 score. In addition, one minority candidate with the same Chief’s Interview score of 4 and a lower initial ranking, #34 was hired. Finally, two minority candidates with Chief’s Interview scores of 4 and lower initial rankings than Irion, #68 and #69, appear to have been given initial conditional offers of employment, but they were not ultimately hired.Beadle, who was Personnel Officer for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District at the time of the relevant events, states in his declaration that he was present at the meeting in which the Chief’s InterviewPanel made its recommendations for Academy Class 34 and that the panelists “did not recommend Mr. Irion for hire…because they unanimously felt his answers to questions illustrated that he was too rigid andwould be a difficult employee.”Irion asserts that Contra Costa County discriminated against him on the basis of veteran status, in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”). Under USERRA, employers may not deny a person employment on the basis of membership, including past membership, in a uniformed service. USERRA is violated when veteran status is a “motivating factor” in the employer’s action.Question: Was an applicant for a position as firefighter discriminated against because he was a United States Air Force veteran? Explain.

Case #7Ms. Walker was a permanent clerk typist in the Internal Revenue Service’s Atlanta office. Ms. Walker is a light-skinned black person. Her supervisor was Ruby Lewis. Ms. Lewis is a dark-skinned black person. The employees in the office in which Ms. Walker and Ms. Lewis worked were predominantly black. In fact,following her termination, Ms. Walker was replaced by a black person. The working relationship between Ms. Walker and Ms. Lewis was strained from the very beginning, since approximately November of 1985. Ms. Walker contends that Ms. Lewis singled her out for close scrutiny and reprimanded her for many things that were false or insubstantial. Ms. Walker’s relationship with her former supervisor, Virginia Fite, was a cordial one. In fact, Ms. Walker received a favorable recommendation from Ms. Fite.Ms. Walker met with Sidney Douglas, the EEO program manager for the Internal Revenue Service’s Atlanta district about the problems she was having with Ms. Lewis. Two weeks later, pursuant to Ms. Lewis’s recommendation, Ms. Walker was terminated. The reasons given for her termination were: (1) tardiness to work; (2) laziness; (3) incompetence; and (4) attitude problems. It is Ms. Walker’s belief that the reasons were fabricated and were the result of Ms. Lewis’s personal hostility towards Ms. Walker because of Ms. Walker’s light skin.1

Question: The issue is whether color discrimination includes difference between light-skinned and dark-skinned people of the same race. Explain.2

HRA545 Personnel Law and Ethics

Module 4 Assignment

Case Assignment 4

Case #8 Elysa Yanowitz joined L’Oreal’s predecessor in 1981. She was promoted from sales representative to regional sales manager for Northern California and the Pacific Northwest in 1986.In the fall of 1997, Jack Wiswall, Yanowitz’s superior, ordered Yanowitz to have a female sales associate at Macy’s West store in her region fired. As justification, Wiswall explained that the associate “was not good looking enough.” The associate had dark skin; Wiswall preferred fair-skinned blondes. Wiswall told Yanowitz, “Get me somebody hot,” or words to that effect. Yanowitz did not carry out Wiswall’s order. When Wiswall asked her whether the associate had been dismissed on subsequent occasions, Yanowitz requested adequate justification for firing her. Yanowitz did not complain to Human Resources, nor did she tell Wiswall that his order was discriminatory. Question: Does the pressure placed on a regional sales manager by her general manager to hire a salesassociate who was attractive constitute sex discrimination? Explain.

Case #9 In late October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S.A., Inc. oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew, which included John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen, and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assaulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape. Question: Does a victim of same-sex sexual harassment have a viable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Explain.

Case #10 Dwayne Kelley began working for Crosfield as a laboratory technician on August 1, 1992. This position required Kelley to work 12-hour shifts for four consecutive days followed by three consecutive “off” days. Kelley was scheduled to begin a four-day work rotation on October 22, 1993, when he unexpectedly received a phone call from his mother. His mother informed him that the Brooklyn Bureau of Child Welfarewas preparing to take custody of Shaneequa Forbes, an 11-year-old girl. Shaneequa was born into the marriage of Barbara and Michael Forbes, but Kelley had reason to believe that he might be the girl’s biological father.Kelley told his supervisors at Crosfield that Shaneequa was his daughter. Kelley missed four scheduled workdays while attending to this matter in New York. On his first day back at work, October 29, Crosfield terminated Kelley’s employment. Kelley alleged that his termination violated the FMLA because he took leave from work in order to “obtain custody of my kids.” Question: Is seeking custody of one’s own children covered by the FMLA? Explain.1

HRA545 Personnel Law and Ethics

Module 5 Assignment

Case Assignment 5

Case #11Mary Myers is a practicing Seventh-day Adventist. The tenets of her religion forbid her from engaging in any form of work on the Sabbath, which extends from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. In June 1988, Myers was hired as a full-time bus operator trainee by the New York City Transit Authority, which operates its buses on a seven-day-per-week, 24-hour-per-day basis. From the outset, Myers made it clear to her supervisors that her religious commitments would prevent her from working between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday. A problem arose because she was assigned Wednesdaysand Thursdays as her days off, a schedule requiring her regularly to work on her Sabbath. Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the Port Authority and the Transport Workers Union, the privilege of selecting weekly days off was allocated in accordance with a strict seniority system. Myers spoke with several of her employer’s representatives in an effort to obtain some accommodation for her Sabbath observance. Her request for “split” days off was rebuffed on the ground that the practice was forbidden by the collective bargaining agreement.Question: Must an employer make a good faith effort to try to accommodate an employee’s Sabbath when the accommodation would place the employer in violation of a collective bargaining agreement? Explain.

Case #12 Dr. Cacace is an urologist and Marge DeSantis is his office manager. Ms. Rosario, born in New Jersey of Puerto Rican ancestry, was hired in late June 1997 as a secretary/medical assistant. She was dischargedin early August of the same year. One qualification for the job was fluency in Spanish because most of Dr. Cacace’s patients were Spanish speaking. Ms. Rosario is bilingual in Spanish and English. Another bilingual medical assistant, Bertha Aranzazu, was also employed in the office. Dr. Cacace speaks English and Spanish as well, as does his wife who also worked in the office and is of Hispanic origin. Ms. DeSantis was the only employee who was not proficient in both languages; she spoke and understood English only.Ms. Rosario characterized Ms. DeSantis’s treatment of her as follows:During my employment, at least once a week I was told on many occasions by Marge DeSantis not to speak Spanish on the job and on occasion not even speak Spanish to patients. One occasion, Marge DeSantis told me and another employee, “I am going to let one of you go because there is too much chitchat in Spanish I don’t understand.” It is a common custom among people of Spanish national origin to speak Spanish to each other. Bilinguals even combine English with Spanish. It just happens. I have always habitually done this and to this day I still do itand no employer I have ever worked for to this day has ever complained except Ms. DeSantis.On or about August 5, 1997, DeSantis fired Rosario, telling her, “I’m sorry that I have to let you go like thisbecause you are a nice girl and a quick learner, but I cannot have you speaking Spanish in my office.”Question: Can an employee be discharged for speaking Spanish in the workplace? Explain.1

HRA545 Personnel Law and Ethics

Module 6 Assignment

Case #13 Casey Martin is a professional golfer and also an individual with a disability as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).Since birth he has been afflicted with Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, a degenerative circulatory disorder that obstructs the flow of blood from his right leg back to his heart. The disease is progressive; it causes severe pain and has atrophied his right leg. During the latter part of his college career, because of the progress of the disease, Martin could no longer walk an 18-hole golf course. Walking not only caused him pain, fatigue, and anxiety, but also created a significant risk of hemorrhaging, developing blood clots, and fracturing his tibia so badly that an amputation might berequired. For these reasons, Stanford made written requests to the Pacific 10 Conference and the NCAA to waive for Martin their rules requiring players to walk and carry their own clubs. The requests were granted.When Martin turned pro and entered the PGA Tour’s Q-School, the hard card permitted him to use a cart during his successful progress through the first two stages. He made a request, supported by detained medical records, for permission to use a golf cart during the third stage. PGA Tour refused to review these records or to waive its walking rule for the third stage.Question: Is allowing use of a golf cart a reasonable accommodation for a professional golfer with a disability that restricts him from walking substantial distances? Explain.

Case #14 Eastern Associated Coal Corp. and United Mine Workers of America are parties to a collective-bargainingagreement with arbitration provisions. The agreement specifies that, in arbitration, in order to discharge an employee, Eastern must prove it has “just cause.” Otherwise the arbitrator will order the employee reinstated. The arbitrator’s decision is final.James Smith worked for Eastern as a member of a road crew, a job that required him to drive heavy truck-like vehicles on public highways. As a truck driver, Smith was subject to Department of Transportation (“DOT”) regulations requiring random drug testing of workers engaged in “safety-sensitive”tasks.In March 1996, Smith tested positive for marijuana. Eastern sought to discharge Smith. The union went toarbitration, and the arbitrator concluded that Smith’s positive drug test did not amount to “just cause” for discharge. Instead, the arbitrator ordered Smith’s reinstatement, provided that Smith (1) accept a suspension of 30 days without pay; (2) participate in a substance-abuse program; and (3) undergo drug tests at the discretion of Eastern (or an approved substance-abuse professional) for the next five years.Between April 1996 and January 1997, Smith passed four random drug tests, but in July 1997 he again tested positive for marijuana. Eastern again sought to discharge Smith. The union again went to arbitration, and the arbitrator again concluded that Smith’s use of marijuana did not amount to “just cause”for discharge, in light of two mitigating circumstances. First, Smith had been a good employee for 17 years, and second, Smith had made a credible and “very personal appeal under oath concerning a personal family problem which caused this one time lapse in drug usage.”The arbitrator ordered Smith’s reinstatement provided that Smith (1) accept a new suspension without pay, this time for slightly more than three months; (2) reimburse Eastern and the union for the costs of both arbitration proceedings; (3) continue to participate in a substance-abuse program; (4) continue to undergo random drug testing; and (5) provide Eastern with a signed, undated letter of resignation, to take effect if Smith again tested positive within the next five years.1

Question: Is the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate a driver who twice tested positive for drugs arbitrary andcapricious? Explain.

HRA545 Personnel Law and Ethics

Module 7 Assignment

Case #15 Skidmore was required by his employer, Swift Co., to be “on call.” The “on call” situation allowed him to be anywhere he wished to be. When called, however, he had to be there within an hour. This was called “waiting time.” Overall, during most weeks, his actual hours exceeded the 40 hour workweek. Skidmore requested overtime pay, but was not paid. Swift argued that Skidmore was not entitled to such compensation. Question: Should on-call time be compensated as working time? Explain.

Case #16 Ms. Savage, a teacher at Sebring Middle School, was injured in December 1990 during a basketball game between the teachers and students. The game was an annual charity event. The game occurred during regular school hours, and the teachers received their regular salary. The teachers were required toparticipate in the game, either as a spectator or as a player. No benefit or detriment resulted from a teacher’s decision to play or to act as a spectator.ISSUE: Is the injury Ms. Savage sustained due to her participation in the faculty-student basketball game “work related”? Explain.

Case #17 On Saturday, November 11, 1995, Ms. Parry was employed by Wal-Mart and was scheduled to work a 4:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. Ms. Parry left the store at 8:30 p.m. for her meal break. She did not return that night; instead, she called the store from her home and told the assistant manager that she had slipped on ice in the parking lot on the way to her car and injured her back. After seeking medical care, Ms. Parry was released to work on December 26, 1995.The Wal-Mart parking lot was covered with ice as the result of an ice storm on November 11, 1995. Therewas only one parking lot at Wal-Mart, used by both employees and customers. Employees were requested, but not required, to park on the south side of the lot so that customers would have better access to the front door. However, the south side of the lot was not restricted from customer use. As Ms. Parry walked to her car at about 8:30 p.m. her feet came out from underneath her. She twisted around to catch herself but her back hit the ground. She drove to her home approximately one block awayand called Wal-Mart, speaking to the assistant manager. She did not return to work that night or the next day. She sought medical attention on Monday. Question: Is the employee covered under workers’ compensation for sustaining injuries by falling in a parking area designated for use by the general public? Explain. 1