- All Best Essays, Term Papers and Book Report

Karri Vatne Case

Essay by   •  July 14, 2013  •  Case Study  •  1,503 Words (7 Pages)  •  1,296 Views

Essay Preview: Karri Vatne Case

Report this essay
Page 1 of 7

TO: Vice President, Company X

FROM: Karri Vatne, Director Human Resources, Company X

DATE: July 11, 2013

SUBJECT: Evaluation of possible HR Violations

This is in response to the possible violation of three different HR procedures and if any federal regulations have been broken.

Summary of situation A

* Company X has employed Employee A for two years.

o To be eligible the law states that at least one year of employment is required. Therefore, Employee A has fulfilled employment requirements.

* Spouse of Employee A's gave birth.

o The Law states that the birth of a son or daughter qualify for FMLA. The premature birth of twins qualifies Employee A.

* Employee A requested leave to be with his spouse.

o FMLA allows for the non-birth parent to receive time off. Employee A qualifies for this requirement.

* Employee A has been on leave for 11 weeks.

o FMLA allows up to 12 weeks.

* Employee A has asked to return to work.

o Employee A has returned to work in his former position and pay.

* Employee A has requested to be paid back wages for his time off.

o FMLA allows for unpaid time off. Therefore, his appeal for back pay has been rejected.

Qualifications: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 safeguards personnel that find it necessity to receive time off to tend to a personal, family illness, or birth/adoption of a child. It states that enterprises with 50 or more in the company's work force have to extend unpaid time off to workers that have a minimum 1,250 hours and no less than one year of employment.

Evaluation: Company X has more than 75 employees and therefore have to act in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Certain aspects must be taken into consideration to fully assess the given situation. First, did the employee work the number of hours required? For the purpose of this report it will be assumed that in fact Employee A has worked the required number of hours. Upon a careful review of the situation it is evident that the associate was allowed to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off. He is also permitted to resume his former job at the same pay. He is not eligible to be paid for the 11 weeks of unpaid compensation.

Infringement: There has been no Infringement of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The laws states Employee A is entitled up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off, providing he has met the requirements of employment. The requirements being, having worked at least 1,250 hours during the previous year. Our requirement according to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, is to allow Employee A to resume his former position and pay. However, if his former position had been unobtainable we then would have been required to provide him with a station equal in pay, benefits, responsibility and with this same hours and shift. Considering he has been returned to his former position and rate of pay this requirement has been met

Summary of Situation B:

* Employee B is 68 years of age.

o Employees over the age of 40 are protected by The Age Discrimination Act.

* During the annual performance review last month, it was determined that Employee B was doing "above average" work in the department.

o Employee B has shown to be qualified based on her performance review.

* Promotion was denied due to age.

o The ADEA Specifies an employee age 40 and over, who is qualified, cannot be denied a promotion based solely on age.

* The promotion was given to a younger co-worker after obtaining a performance review of "adequate."

o The promotion was given to a younger less qualified employee.

Qualifications: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) renders it unlawful for any company to refuse to employ, dismiss, or exhibit prejudice against any individual over the age of 40 There is an exception to this rule, if the employer can prove that promoting the younger person over Employee A was reasonably necessary and not just merely convenient or reasonable, it would then be considered acceptable and not discrimination. There are two qualifications to be deemed reasonably necessary. First, that is logically essential to the crux of the business, and second that a personalized method would be senseless



Download as:   txt (8.9 Kb)   pdf (112.4 Kb)   docx (12.1 Kb)  
Continue for 6 more pages »
Only available on