In This Assignment, You Evaluate And Assess Workplace Protec ✓ Solved

In This Assignment You Evaluate And Assess Workplace Protection Legis

In this assignment, you evaluate and assess workplace protection legislation, identify the law pursuant to the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine and legal exceptions and apply this understanding to a business scenario, and explain legal requirements for hiring new employees and your own home state laws as to workers' compensation and immigration.

Respond to the following in 4–6 pages: Cite two federal laws that you believe are the most important for protecting employees from workplace discrimination. Provide a compelling argument for the effectiveness of the legislation in protecting employees and two case law examples to support your assessment. Explain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States.

Some states do not allow undocumented workers, or those not legally allowed to work in the United States, to receive workers' compensation benefits. Provide the law in your home state and a compelling and supported (with research) argument advocating for or against your state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. Provide a comprehensive summary of the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine that includes all possible legal exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination. Cite and support (with research) an appropriate EAW exception that the employee in each of the following scenarios could reasonably argue to save their job.

Scenario 1: JoAnn, a manager, started a blog on the company website for employee grievances and problems. She noticed that a worker was protesting that allegedly no Asian American employees had gotten a raise in two years at the company. Christine, the employee, also criticized how much CEO Elon had made last year and how he was "out of touch" with the realities of his employees. JoAnn reminded Christine that she was an employee-at-will. The next day, Christine talked to her fellow co-workers about forming a union. JoAnn fired Christine, and Christine is suing for wrongful termination.

Scenario 2: Steven, a department supervisor, fired his secretary, Ann. Ann, a devout Christian, had been putting Right-to-Life flyers in the employee breakroom. Steven talked to Ann twice and reiterated her actions were not appropriate. Ann continued to leave the pamphlets and was also taking time away from work to pray at her desk during the busiest times of the morning. Ann is suing for wrongful termination.

Requirements: 4-6 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), with 1-inch margins on all sides. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student's name, the professor's name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the sources list are not included in the required assignment page length.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Workplace protection legislation plays a crucial role in safeguarding employees' rights and ensuring fair treatment in the U.S. employment landscape. Two of the most important federal laws protecting against workplace discrimination are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability, establishing a foundational legal framework to promote equality and prevent unfair treatment.

Federal Laws Protecting Employees from Workplace Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark law that prohibits employment discrimination based on protected classes. Its effectiveness is demonstrated through landmark cases such as Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), which established that employment practices must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Another significant case is Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), which recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination, emphasizing the importance of a harassment-free workplace.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations. In cases like Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the definition of disability, shaping effective compliance strategies for employers.

Verifying Legal Employment in the U.S.

Employers are legally obligated to verify the work eligibility of their employees. The primary method is the completion of Form I-9, which requires employees to provide documentation establishing identity and work authorization. Employers must review original documents such as passports or driver’s licenses and verify their validity through E-Verify, an online system that confirms employment eligibility with federal databases. These steps help prevent unauthorized employment and ensure compliance with federal law.

State Laws on Workers' Compensation for Undocumented Workers

State-specific laws vary widely regarding workers’ compensation benefits for undocumented workers. In California, for example, state law (California Labor Code § 3600) mandates that all employees, regardless of immigration status, are eligible for workers' compensation benefits. An argument in favor of extending benefits to undocumented workers is based on principles of fairness, public safety, and economic stability, as these workers often perform essential roles in the economy and are vulnerable without access to such benefits.

Conversely, some states deny benefits to undocumented workers, citing immigration law enforcement concerns. This practice can be challenged based on California’s approach and other similar laws, which support social equity and injury prevention, advocating that denying benefits discourages workplace safety and exposes workers to serious risks.

Employment-at-Will (EAW) Doctrine and Exceptions

The employment-at-will doctrine allows employers or employees to terminate employment at any time for any reason—except for illegal reasons such as discrimination or retaliation—and without prior notice. However, several exceptions protect employees from wrongful termination, including public policy exceptions, implied contracts, and good-faith exceptions.

In the case of JoAnn, the employee likely could argue an exception based on protected speech under the First Amendment, especially regarding activities related to union formation, which is encouraged and protected. The legal basis might be the public policy exception that prohibits firing employees for engaging in lawful activities protected by law.

Similarly, Ann’s case involves religious expression and workplace conduct. Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, religious accommodations are required unless providing such would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. If Steven ignored reasonable religious accommodations, Ann might successfully argue a wrongful termination under this exception.

Conclusion

Workplace protection laws, both federal and state, are essential for creating equitable and safe working environments. Understanding the legal framework surrounding employment discrimination, verification processes, and wrongful termination exceptions enables both employers and employees to navigate complex legal landscapes effectively. Ensuring compliance with these laws fosters a just and productive workplace culture.

References

• Allen, P. (2019). Employment Discrimination Law. West Academic Publishing.
• Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2020). Employment Law for Business. McGraw-Hill.
• California Labor Code § 3600. (n.d.).
• Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
• Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
• Toyoto Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Laws Enforced by EEOC. EEOC.gov.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2022). E-Verify Overview. DHS.gov.
• U.S. Supreme Court. (2002). Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams.
• Workplace Fairness. (2022). Wrongful Termination and Exceptions. workplacefairness.org.