Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
LW ASSIGNMENTS
PART 1 COMPLETE DISCUSSION
Week 2: Recruitment of Employees
Le
LW ASSIGNMENTS
PART 1 COMPLETE DISCUSSION
Week 2: Recruitment of Employees
Let’s begin our discussion on recruitment by using a fact pattern from a litigated case. Cone Mills Corporation had several recruiting procedures that gave preferential treatment to applicants who either had family members or friends working for the company. One of these procedures was to give priority to applicants who had family members employed by the company. The other procedure entailed having an unwritten policy that walk-in applicants had to have renewed every 2 weeks. This created a situation where only those walk-in applicants who had friends or family in the company would renew their applications because they would be the only ones informed of the informal rule, which was not presented in any manual or policy. These recruiting procedures were challenged as being discriminatory toward blacks in general, especially black women, because the informal network responsible for recruiting new employees was unavailable to them. The company claimed that the procedures were not designated to be discriminatory, but rather, to create a loyal family atmosphere within the plant (Lea v. Cone Mills Corp., 3001 F. Supp. 97).
Should employers be able to recruit through employee referrals and word-of-mouth? Does the law allow for such a recruitment technique? What specific restrictions does Title VII place on an employer’s ability to recruit and hire? As part of this discussion, refer to the cases of EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works and EEOC v. Consolidated Service System in Chapter 4, pages 161–162.
PART 2 REPLY TO DISCUSSION
Professor & Class
Should employers be able to recruit through employee referrals and word-of-mouth? Does the law allow for such a recruitment technique? What specific restrictions does Title VII place on an employer’s ability to recruit and hire?
Employee referrals and word-of-mouth recruitment are common practices in many industries and are generally allowed under the law. There are no specific laws that prohibit employers from using these methods to recruit candidates for employment. In fact, employee referrals can be an effective way for companies to find qualified candidates who are a good fit for their organization. I currently work for an Government agency and most of the candidates come from referrals /word of mouth. I feel that leadership encourage it because the candidate’s are coming from reliable sources, because most of the employees that referred the candidates have work with the person and know that they are reliable and can do the job that is required .
However, while referrals and word-of-mouth recruitment are generally permissible, employers must still comply with anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
PART 3 REPLY TO DISCUSSION
Professor,
I never thought about this and I serve on the Diversity committee within my agency. Disparate impact occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or practice negatively impacts people of a protected class. Unlike disparate treatment, disparate impact can be unintentional, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t unlawful employment discrimination. An employer may have intended for a policy or practice to affect all employees equally but didn’t consider the adverse effects it would have on certain employees of a protected class. One example of disparate impact in the workplace is requiring a strength test that negatively impacts women and prevents them from having the same opportunities as men.
However, policies that adversely affect members of a protected class may not be considered discriminatory if there is a legitimate reason for the policy or practice. For example, the physical strength test may not be considered unlawful discrimination if a certain level of physical strength is necessary for the job and the job can’t be performed without it, even if women face disproportionate adverse effects. Employers would need to prove that there is a job-related reason for the policy or practice.
As all employees are subjected to these policies and practices, they might not be an obvious sign of discrimination to some. However, even if discriminationLinks to an external site. was not the employer’s intent, disparate impact discrimination is still prohibited.
https://www.civilrightsfirm.com/what-is-disparate-impact-discrimination/Links to an external site.
PART 4
Log into McGraw Hill
Lorettajwilliams2022@gmail.com
Snow@2018
https://learning.mheducation.com/static/awd/index.html?_t=1715422086309
MCGRAW HILL
HRM593 Employment Law for Business (NO EVERGREEN CHANGES)
HRM593 MAY24 Session Course 2
FOR THIS PART COMPLETE WEEK 1 AND WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT. COMPLETE ALL ASSIGNMENTS THAT COUNT TOWARD A GRADE.
PART 5 COMPLETE DISCUSSION
Week 1: Employment-at-Will Exceptions and Liability
Start your first post this week by discussing employment-at-will exceptions and liability.
Review the cases presented for consideration in Question 2 of the Chapter-End Questions in Chapter 2.
For your posts, prepare a detailed response for one of the 10 scenarios, explaining your conclusion regarding whether the scenario constitutes a violation of public policy or a breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Support your conclusion with legal analysis and reasoning. Explain whether any of the scenarios give rise to potential employer liability and what steps should have been taken to avoid the exposure. Then, comment and expand on the posts of the other class members.
Some examples are the following. A female childcare worker alleges that she was unlawfully terminated from her position as the director of a childcare facility after continually refusing to make staff cuts. The staff cuts she was asked to make resulted in violation of state regulations governing the minimum ratios between staff and child. After the employee was terminated, the employer’s childcare center was in violation of the staff-to-child ratio. [Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751, 2009 Iowa Sup.]
A machine operator employee with a major depressive disorder intermittently takes leaves under the Family and Medical Leave Act, resulting in alleged harassment by her employer surrounding her FMLA usage as well as a transfer to various difficult machines after her return from leave. Two months after her last FMLA leave, she is terminated for “improper phone usage.” [Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 361 F. Supp. 2d 935 (S.D. Iowa, 2005).]
A legal secretary to a county commissioner is terminated because of her political beliefs. [Armour v. County of Beaver, 271 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2001).]
PART 6 REPLY TO DISCUSSION
Professor & Class,
The “at-will employment” doctrine is a legal principle in employment law that governs the relationship between employers and employees in many jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. Under this doctrine, both the employer and the employee have the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, without the need to provide a specific cause or justification. This means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason, if it is not an illegal reason, such as discrimination based on protected characteristics like race, gender, or religion.
I found this case: KASTEN v. SAINT GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION (2012)
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Kevin KASTEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SAINT–GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellee.
Kevin Kasten sued his employer, Saint–Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (“Saint–Gobain”), alleging unlawful retaliation for lodging oral complaints regarding the location of time clocks under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). Kasten complained that Saint–Gobain’s time clocks were placed in locations which caused him to frequently forget to punch in, notifying his supervisors on at least five occasions that the location away from the donning and doffing area was “illegal.” Kasten failed to punch in on several occasions, violating company policy. He was suspended and ultimately terminated.
PART 7 COMPLETE DISCUSSION
Week 1 593
Selected scenario, a county commissioner was terminated for her political beliefs. My reason for the illegality of the scenario are as follows, Federal law offers minimal protection to employees concerning termination or disciplinary actions based on their political beliefs or engagements. There’s a common misconception that First Amendment rights of free speech extend to the workplace, but this is generally not applicable to most employees.
I’m not sure if I am understanding correctly, is county commissioner considered government? The First Amendment safeguards free speech against government interference, but it doesn’t extend to private employers. Thus, unless one is employed by the government, the First Amendment doesn’t impose restrictions on employers. Additionally, even for government employees, First Amendment rights are subject to limitations in the workplace. Regarding federal laws, while they offer limited protection for political beliefs at work, there are specific situations where employees are safeguarded.
The courts have outlined three main exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine: public policy, implied contract, and implied covenant of good faith. Essentially, this grants employees the option to legally challenge their employer for wrongful termination if they were dismissed for refusing to breach a statute, fulfilling a legal obligation, or exercising a statutory right or privilege.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.