Law_Encounters

Responses to Three Employment Law Encounters Stephanie León-Rivera University of Phoenix LAW 531PR May 11, 2013 Prof. Lirio Bernal-Sánchez Responses to Three Employment Law Encounters Given the major changes in business markets, companies have had to change their strategy drastically. Similarly, given the level of competition between companies and with globalization bringing this constantly changing market. Companies are making changes into her operational and organizational plan and also their employees are affected. Scenario 1 FastServe Inc. is a company of sport apparel clothing. It has 350 employees, and the projected annual earnings are 25 million. FastServe had developed two different websites, online marketing and distribution that will allow the organization to increase in assets. This company is moving to manage the online business. Due to a recent decrease in sales, FastServe was forced to select 5 employees to layoff. The employees to be considered for layoff are Carl Haimes, Brian Carter, Sarah Boyd, Nora Manson and Jenny Mills. Employees considered for layoff and law encounters Carl Haimes, is and employee by Contract. The investigation found that Ben the accountant manager was in fault to make offensive remarks about Haime’s sexual orientation. The employment law encounter that affect Haimes Case is according to the “Ley contra el discrimen en el empleo del 1959” (29 L.P.R.A. sec. 146). However, the current federal law does not protect individuals from discrimination due to sexual orientation. Brian Carter, is and employee by Contract. He is having an absenteeism situation due to his diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. To this case could apply the law Americans with Disabilities Act or “Ley ADA” (Ley Núm. 155 del año 2011). This laws do not protect an employee from termination if his or her skill sets are no longer required. Sarah Boyd, she is the only full time employee and have being in the company for about 15 years. Boyd may be affected by anti-ageism, “Ley contra el discrimen en el empleo del 1959” (29 L.P.R.A. sec. 146) and The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (citar) who protect individuals who are 40 year of age or older. However, with an agreement between the parties by assigning a pension and bonus for their years of service might be done without risk a halt to a lawsuit by the employee. Scenario 3 Paul refused to work on the machine, saying that it was still too confining and dangerous. The safety manager for Yilmaz reviews the area and confirms it safe. Paul indicates he is become claustrophobic because of working in confining spaces, and that condition is caused of his employment, making it a worker compensation issue. In addition to calling OSHA, Paul threatened to get a lawyer. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1978 are requiring employers to provide a safe and healthful workplace (Puerto Rico Plan). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the federal agency that enforces this law. Employers cannot take any retaliatory action against employees when their complaints result in an OSHA inspection of the workplace. If Yilmaz fires, demotes, or discriminates against Paul for registering an OSHA complaint, Paul can file a complaint and the Department of Labor can then pursue his rights in federal district court. References Age Discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm Ley contra el discrimen en el empleo del 1959. Retrieved from http://www.lexjuris.com/trabajo%5Clex1959100.htm Ley Núm. 155 del año 2011. Retrieved from http://www.lexjuris.com/lexlex/Leyes2011/lexl2011155.htm Puerto Rico Plan. Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/puerto_rico.html