BHR 3565 Employment Law 1 Course Learning Outcomes For Unit ✓ Solved

Bhr 3565 Employment Law 1course Learning Outcomes For Unit V

Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

• Identify and discuss sexual harassment, discrimination, and orientation issues within the workplace and their implications.
• Explain the protections that the Family and Medical Leave Act offers to employees.
• Describe how the Pregnancy Discrimination Act balances the interests of women and employers of women who may become pregnant.
• Contrast the protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation available in federal law with those available in state laws.
• Identify the legal and employment difficulties faced by employees with same-sex partners.

Reading Assignment: Chapter 12: Pregnancy Discrimination and Family and Medical Leave; Chapter 13: Sexual Orientation

Employers seek to make their businesses profitable, and one way to increase profitability is to boost productivity. Productivity depends largely on employees working efficiently and being dependable. Employers prefer to hire qualified and reliable employees and avoid hiring those whose availability might be compromised by illness or family obligations.

For instance, if an employer knows a person is ill or has family obligations that could interfere with work, it may decline to hire that person as a business strategy. However, such decisions can raise legal issues since discrimination based on pregnancy or family status is regulated by law. Historically, before 1978, employers could refuse to hire women who were pregnant or expected to become pregnant, citing business interests. Such practices were discriminatory, though they were not explicitly addressed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In 1978, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy, including existing pregnancy and potential future pregnancy. Despite this, questions remain regarding workplace safety for pregnant employees and the placement of pregnant workers in hazardous jobs. Courts have found that reassigning pregnant women to lower-paying or less hazardous tasks can constitute sex discrimination, creating a complex legal landscape for employers.

To comply with legal obligations, many employers offer alternative jobs with comparable pay or provide health and wellness programs such as prenatal counseling and medical care. Additionally, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for medical or family reasons, including for childbirth. FMLA thus safeguards pregnant employees' job security during maternity leave, including for fathers who may want to care for the new child.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not covered under Title VII, but several states have enacted laws to prohibit such discrimination, though legal issues remain unresolved regarding transgender employees and same-sex partnered benefits. Questions about benefits—such as whether a same-sex partner qualifies as a dependent—depend on state law and company policies, leading to ongoing legal debates.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Employment law has undergone significant evolution to protect workers from discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and family responsibilities. These legal protections aim to balance the interests of employees seeking equitable treatment and employers striving for productivity and profitability. This paper explores key employment laws, their implications, and specific case analyses to illustrate how these laws function in real-world contexts.

Historically, employment practices favored discrimination against women, especially regarding pregnancy. Before the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978, employers commonly refused to hire women who were pregnant or anticipated pregnancy, citing business interests. These practices were discriminatory but fell outside the scope of federal law, as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not explicitly prohibit pregnancy discrimination. The PDA amended Title VII to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy, ensuring pregnant women had equal employment rights (Moran, 2014). This legal milestone aimed to prevent employers from dismissing or refusing to hire pregnant women solely because of their pregnancy status.

Nonetheless, the law also introduced complex challenges related to workplace safety and discrimination. Employers faced dilemmas when pregnant employees were exposed to hazardous work environments. Courts addressed this by scrutinizing employer practices, ruling that assigning pregnant women to less hazardous or lower-paying jobs solely based on pregnancy could constitute sex discrimination. Employers responded by offering comparable alternative positions or providing health and wellness services, such as prenatal care, to accommodate pregnant workers without violating anti-discrimination statutes (Smith & Johnson, 2010).

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) further supports pregnant employees by granting up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for childbirth and caregiving. This law underscores the importance of job protection during family-related medical events. For example, in the case of Maria, who requested FMLA leave to assist her husband, the complexity of qualifying leave arises. Maria's leave was denied because the employer perceived her intended travel for religious reasons as an invalid certification of medical necessity, leading to her termination. Legally, under FMLA, if the leave is for a qualifying reason such as serious health condition, the employer is obligated to grant it. The case underscores the importance of accurate medical certification and the employer's obligation to provide leave where appropriate (Williams, 2012).

Discrimination based on sexual orientation, unlike pregnancy and sex discrimination, is not explicitly covered under federal law. This gap led to varying state laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. States like California and New York have enacted comprehensive statutes protecting LGBTQ+ workers, including transgender employees facing discrimination based on gender identity (Harper & Patel, 2015). These laws address issues such as harassment, dress codes incompatible with gender identity, and access to employer-provided benefits for same-sex partners, including health insurance coverage.

The case of Leo highlights legal challenges faced by transgender employees. Leo was terminated for wearing feminine attire, raising questions about gender discrimination. Federal laws such as Title VII have been interpreted by courts to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and expression, considering such discrimination as sex discrimination. State laws further strengthen protections for transgender workers, prohibiting harassment and unfair treatment (Klein, 2018). The legal framework aims to ensure workplace equality regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The question of whether a same-sex partner qualifies as a dependent for employer-provided benefits depends on the jurisdiction. Many states and companies extend health benefits to partners regardless of marital status, especially in jurisdictions recognizing same-sex marriage. Hawaii, for example, legally recognizes same-sex marriage, influencing employer policies to include same-sex partners as dependents for health coverage (Hawaii Department of Health, 2019). The move toward inclusive benefits reflects evolving societal and legal standards promoting equality for LGBTQ+ employees.

In conclusion, employment laws are increasingly comprehensive in addressing discrimination and ensuring equal treatment for all employees. While federal legislation provides foundational protections, state laws play a critical role in filling gaps, especially concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers must stay informed of legal developments to foster inclusive work environments and comply with evolving regulations.

References

• Harper, T., & Patel, S. (2015). LGBTQ+ workplace protections and legal challenges. Journal of Employment Law, 12(3), 45-59.
• Klein, R. (2018). Transgender rights and employment law: A legal overview. Harvard Law Review, 131(2), 367-394.
• Hawaii Department of Health. (2019). Legal recognition of same-sex marriage and its implications. Hawaii State Publications.
• Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Smith, L., & Johnson, P. (2010). Workplace accommodations for pregnant employees: Legal perspectives. Labor Law Journal, 61(4), 215-230.
• Williams, A. (2012). Case studies in family and medical leave: Legal considerations. Employee Rights Journal, 24(1), 39-50.