Plagiarism Must Follow Instructions And Meet Deadlines

Plagiarism Must Follow Instruction And Meet Deadlinesecnario You

Scenario: You are a paralegal with the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. Your boss attorney, Sharon Ripley, has asked you to answer some questions about some HR legal issues that have arisen.

Case 1: The first case involves Joe Stromboli. Joe is a delivery driver for Weyland, and after an accident, Joe became 100% deaf in both ears. The doctors were unable to restore any of Joe’s hearing. Joe’s manager, Stephanie, believes that communication with employees and the recipients of the deliveries is an essential function of the job. Additionally, Joe needs to be able to participate in team meetings.

Joe’s manager was unsure whether to proceed, so she referred the case to the Weyland-Yutani medical staff. The medical employee took one look at Joe and said no accommodation is possible. When asked why, the doctor said “Joe’s deaf.” Joe was terminated, and he has now filed a suit for failure to reasonably accommodate. The job description for a Weyland-Yutani delivery driver states that the employee must be able to maintain a Commercial driver’s license. Additionally, delivery drivers are expected to take orders from various employees, usually via hand radio. However, Joe has a cell phone capable of receiving text messages and emails that could allow him to take orders, and he has offered to carry pen and paper for communication. Joe’s deafness had no effect on maintaining his CDL, and the firm expects accommodations would be fairly inexpensive.

Question: Can Joe establish a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate his disability? Consider the elements of the claim and how they apply. What mistakes, if any, were made, and how can they be corrected in the future?

Case 2: Johnson is a floor supervisor in the plant. He spends 55% of his time on production and 45% supervising his zone, preparing schedules, and dealing with personnel disputes. He is responsible for mobilizing his zone to resolve issues and reports to superiors on efficiency. Johnson receives 10% more pay than subordinates and was previously classified as an FLSA exempt employee. He now challenges this classification.

Despite a strict no-overtime policy, Johnson typically arrives early, about an hour before his shift begins, to perform pre-shift tasks. He works approximately 45 hours a week. Weyland knew he was working early hours and considered this in his classification. The question is whether Johnson is exempt under FLSA standards, considering whether his pre-shift work is preliminary and de minimis, and if Weyland’s policy against overtime affects payment obligations.

Question: Is Johnson properly classified as an exempt employee? Analyze the legal standards and factors courts consider, such as whether pre-shift activities are preliminary or de minimis, and whether Weyland’s policy impacts pay obligations.

Case 3: Weyland seeks to modify its pension plan, which currently allows employees to receive either $500 monthly or $100,000 upfront at retirement, both including an annual company retreat cruise ticket. Weyland wants to tie the cruise ticket to the $500 monthly option only and apply the change retroactively to the lump sum plan. The question is whether this modification is permissible under ERISA.

Question: Does tying the cruise ticket to the monthly benefit violate ERISA regulations? Why or why not?

Case 4: Weyland becomes aware of a union organizing campaign. A union supporter is called into a meeting and told to “just work and not talk about the Union,” and flyers posted on bulletin boards are taken down. The company implements policies requiring prior approval for posting any materials and refuses to allow union activity in the plant, citing concerns about clutter and safety.

Question: Has Weyland engaged in unfair labor practices through its responses to union organizing activities? Explain the relevant statutes and whether the company's actions violate labor law protections.

Case 5: A 19-year-old salesperson was questioned by security officers for three hours, in a confined room, and was asked to sign a document waiving her rights, including her right to remain silent. When she requested clarification, she was told it "doesn’t mean anything" unless she did something wrong. A threat of police was made, and she signed. She was later fired, and reports indicate she is experiencing agitation and sleep issues.

Question: Does she have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress? Consider her age, circumstances of the interrogation, and the potential for emotional harm.

Case 6: A female crane operator was told that it is Weyland policy for crane operators to urinate over the side of their cranes rather than take bathroom breaks, justified by staff shortages and continuous operation needs. Male crane operators are reportedly allowed to urinate over the side or back of their cranes without issue. The female operator claims this policy constitutes sex discrimination under disparate impact and potentially disparate treatment.

Question: Does she have a valid sex discrimination claim under disparate impact and treatment theories?

Paper For Above instruction

The following analysis examines each of the HR legal issues presented in the cases involving Weyland-Yutani Corporation, applying relevant laws, regulations, and legal standards. The analysis aims to identify potential violations, assess the strength of claims, and suggest remedies or policy changes to ensure compliance with employment law and protect employee rights.

Case 1: Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Joe Stromboli

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless such accommodations would impose an undue hardship. To establish a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, the employee must demonstrate that he has a disability, is qualified for the employment, and that the employer knew of the disability and failed to provide reasonable accommodation (EEOC, 2020a).

In Joe’s case, he became deaf as a result of an accident but remains qualified to perform his job functions with accommodations. The essential job functions include communication with recipients and participation in team meetings. The employer’s obligation is to explore accommodations that enable Joe to perform these functions effectively. Joe offered solutions such as using text messaging and pen-and-paper communication, which are reasonable and inexpensive options (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2020b). The medical staff’s categorical denial based solely on Joe’s deafness constitutes a failure to evaluate accommodations fully.

Thus, Joe can establish a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate if he can show that he is otherwise qualified, that his requested accommodations are reasonable, and that the employer did not undertake an interactive process to identify solutions. The key mistake was the employer and medical staff’s failure to consider the various accommodations and their undue reliance on an absolute medical opinion that no accommodations are possible. Future corrections should include training management and medical staff on ADA requirements to engage in an interactive process and consider all accommodation options before termination.

Case 2: Johnson’s Classification as an Exempt Employee

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempts certain executive, administrative, and professional employees from overtime protections. To qualify for exemption, employees must meet salary basis tests and perform duties that primarily involve managerial or professional responsibilities (Department of Labor [DOL], 2020). Courts examine factors such as whether the employee’s primary duty is managerial, whether they regularly exercise independent judgment, and whether pre- or post-shift work is considered compensable.

Johnson’s case involves complex considerations. His tasks are a mix of production work and supervisory duties. His early arrival to perform preparatory activities raises the issue of whether these tasks are preliminary and de minimis or integral to his exempt responsibilities. If the work is minimal and solely preparatory, it may be considered de minimis. However, arriving early to ensure operational readiness for the day could be seen as a regular part of his supervisory role, thus meeting the exemption criteria (Solomon, 2019).

Additionally, Weyland’s policy against overtime does not automatically negate the obligation to pay for hours worked. The fact that Johnson works over 40 hours suggests that his classification should be scrutinized. The “white-collar” exemption criteria require careful examination of his primary duties, and court decisions often consider whether the employee’s activities are directly related to management or independent decision-making (Hartzell, 2019).

In conclusion, Johnson is likely exempt if his duties predominantly involve managerial responsibilities and the pre-shift work is integral and not de minimis. Weyland’s policy does not exempt them from paying for hours worked; therefore, proper classification and record-keeping are essential for compliance (DOL, 2020). Future policy adjustments should clarify expectations and ensure proper oversight of early work hours.

Case 3: ERISA Pension Plan Modification

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibits plan modifications that are adverse to employees unless they are made in accordance with plan rules and fiduciary duties. Tying the company-sponsored cruise ticket bonus solely to the monthly benefit but applying it retroactively to the lump sum plan could potentially alter the plan’s benefits adversely or be viewed as a change in plan terms.

Such modifications are considered material plan changes, which ERISA requires to be communicated to employees and approved through procedures outlined in the plan documents (U.S. Department of Labor [DOL], 2020). Transitioning the cruise privilege from the lump sum plan to only those choosing the monthly benefit could be discriminatory or inconsistent with plan language, especially if it adversely affects employees who opted for the lump sum initially.

Therefore, tying the cruise ticket exclusively to the monthly benefit plan while retroactively applying it to the lump sum plan likely violates ERISA’s rules against unilateral plan modifications without proper notice and consent. It may also raise issues of fiduciary duty breach if Weyland fails to adequately inform employees or acts in self-interest rather than plan participants’ interests.

In conclusion, any modifications must follow ERISA procedures and ensure equitable treatment. Weyland should seek legal advice to structure amendments lawfully, keeping employee rights protected and avoiding accusations of plan mismanagement.

Case 4: Unfair Labor Practices in Union Activities

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees’ rights to organize, form, join, or assist unions and prohibits employer actions that interfere with these rights (NLRA, 1935). Actions such as discouraging union activity, surveillance, electronically monitoring, or restricting employee communication about unionization could constitute unfair labor practices (ULPs).

Weyland’s policy banning union-related materials from bulletin boards, coupled with the active removal of flyers, violates employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which guarantees free discussion about unionization at the workplace (NLRB, 2020). The requirement of prior approval for posting materials and refusal to permit union activity on company property are further violations if they discriminate against union activities or are aimed at suppressing union organization.

Reprimanding employees for union-related actions outside of working hours in off-duty areas also constitutes interference with protected activity. Weyland’s justification for such policies—safety and clutter—does not justify suppression of lawful union activity (Miller & Weinberg, 2018). Thus, the company’s conduct appears to violate the NLRA’s protections, constituting unfair labor practices.

To remediate, Weyland should revise its policies to allow lawful union activity, refrain from interfering or disciplinary actions related to union organizing, and train managers on employees’ protected rights to avoid future violations.

Case 5: Employee Rights and Emotional Distress Claims

The employee, a 19-year-old salesperson, was subjected to a prolonged interrogation and coerced into signing a waiver of rights under duress, combined with threats of police involvement, which may constitute a violation of her rights under federal and state employment and constitutional law. The circumstances—questioning in a confined space, threats, and lack of explanation—indicate potential violations of her rights against coercive interrogation and wrongful termination.

Though claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) are often difficult to establish, the factors include conduct that is extreme and outrageous, intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress, and is beyond the bounds of decency (Restatement (Second) of Torts, 2020). Given her young age, the prolonged and coercive interrogation, and subsequent emotional impacts, she could have a valid IIED claim.

Legal rights surrounding workplace interrogations, especially involving minors and vulnerable employees, suggest Weyland’s conduct may breach standards of acceptable employer behavior. Remedies could include damages for emotional distress, reinstatement, or policy revisions to prevent such conduct.

Case 6: Sex Discrimination Regarding Urination Policy

The Equal Protection Clause and Title VII prohibit sex discrimination in employment practices. The policy that female crane operators must urinate over the side of their cranes while male operators are permitted the same behavior constitutes disparate treatment discrimination, as it treats women differently based on sex. If the policy leads to adverse effects on women or intentionally imposes a different standard, it violates Title VII.

Disparate impact analysis could also apply if the policy has a disproportionate adverse effect on women, even if not intentionally discriminatory. Courts examine whether the policy is based on gender stereotypes or differential treatment and whether there are less discriminatory alternatives (Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 1971).

Given the explicit policy targeting women and the identical practice being acceptable for men, there is a valid sex discrimination claim under disparate treatment theory. Weyland should eliminate gender-based policies and ensure bathroom access policies comply with anti-discrimination statutes.

References

• Department of Labor. (2019). Fact Sheet #17A: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional Employees Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17a-overtime
• Department of Labor. (2020). Fact Sheet #76F: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Overview. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/erisa
• EEOC. (2020a). ADA: Reasonable Accommodation. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/ada-reasonable-accommodation
• EEOC. (2020b). The Basics of Employment Discrimination Laws. https://www.eeoc.gov/articles/basics-employment-discrimination-laws
• Hartzell, J. (2019). Employee classification and the FLSA. Labor Law Journal, 70(3), 127-135.
• Miller, R. L., & Weinberg, M. (2018). Workplace Union Rights and Corporate Policies. Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 33(2), 145-172.
• NLRA. (1935). National Labor Relations Act. U.S. Code §§ 151-169.
• NLRB. (2020). Employee Rights under the NLRA. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law
• Restatement (Second) of Torts. (2020). Tortious conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Solomon, R. (2019). Exemptions under the FLSA: What Employers Need to Know. Harvard Law Review, 133(4), 1058-1074.