Read Each Of The Following Cases Below And Answer

Read Each Of The Following Cases Below And Answer

Read each of the following cases below and answer the questions after. Let each of the responses be at least 150 words. Scenario: You are a paralegal with the Fulma Corporation. Your boss attorney, Trevor Young, has asked you to answer some questions about some HR legal issues that have arisen.

Paper For Above instruction

Case 1: Joe Stromboli and Reasonable Accommodation

Joe Stromboli, a delivery driver for Fulma Corporation, lost his hearing entirely after an accident, resulting in deafness in both ears. The employer's concern centers on communication requirements fundamental to his job, such as taking orders and participating in meetings. The manager, Stephanie, believed communication is essential but referred the case to medical staff, who dismissed the possibility of accommodation solely based on Joe’s deafness. Subsequently, Joe was terminated and filed a claim alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To establish a prima facie claim, Joe must demonstrate that he has a disability as defined under the ADA, that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without accommodation, and that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation that would enable him to perform these functions. Here, Joe's deafness constitutes a disability, as it substantially limits communication, a core job function.

Furthermore, Joe can perform the essential functions with accommodations such as a text-based communication device and carrying pens and paper, which the employer failed to consider. The employer's reliance on the medical opinion that no accommodation was possible is flawed because the ADA emphasizes an interactive process where employers must explore and provide accommodations unless it imposes an undue hardship. Fulma's assumption that Joe could not be accommodated disregards the available solutions, making the employer’s termination potentially unlawful. Therefore, Joe is likely to succeed in a failure-to-accommodate claim based on the ADA requirements.

Mistakes and Corrective Measures

Several mistakes were made in this case. First, the employer failed to engage in an interactive process to explore possible accommodations, relying solely on the medical staff’s unilateral opinion. Second, dismissing accommodations without considering viable options like text communication or written notes reflects a lack of good faith in accommodating disabilities. Third, the medical staff’s outright refusal based solely on Joe’s deafness was inappropriate, lacking an individualized analysis. These mistakes can be corrected by establishing clear policies requiring meaningful dialogue with employees about possible accommodations, training managers and medical staff on ADA compliance, and ensuring that medical experts provide individualized assessments rather than blanket dismissals. Employers should also document all accommodation efforts to demonstrate good faith, thereby reducing legal risks.

Case 2: Johnson and FLSA Exemption Status

Johnson, a floor supervisor in Fulma’s plant, works approximately 45 hours weekly, with some tasks performed before official start hours, such as arriving early to prepare for the day. Despite a strict no-overtime policy, Johnson’s consistent early arrivals and extra hours raise questions about his exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). To determine if Johnson is exempt, court analysis considers whether his primary duty is managerial or administrative, his level of discretion, and whether he customarily and regularly exercises independent judgment. Johnson’s responsibilities—supervising production zones, preparing schedules, and dealing with personnel disputes—align with managerial duties, supporting exemption. However, his early arrival to perform preparatory tasks challenges that classification because those hours may not be considered part of his primary exempt duties.

Additionally, the court will examine whether Johnson’s pre-shift work is preliminary or integral to his primary duties. Since setting up the workday could be deemed a necessary prelude, some courts might classify it as a de minimis activity, not warranting additional pay. Nonetheless, consistently working beyond 40 hours, despite a no-overtime policy, raises questions about whether Fulma is genuinely enforcing that policy or indirectly compensating Johnson through the exemption classification. Ultimately, the key factors include the nature of his duties, level of discretion, and whether the work is integral to his exempt role. Based on these considerations, Johnson likely qualifies as exempt, but employers must be cautious about enforcing policies that undermine exemption or risk liability.

Pre-shift Work and De Minimis Analysis

Johnson’s pre-shift work—arriving early to prepare his area—is potentially preliminary or de minimis. The legal standard distinguishes whether pre-work activities are integral to exempt duties or merely preparatory. Courts often find small, infrequent tasks to be de minimis, thus not compensable, especially if they are minor in scope or temporally limited. However, repeated early work, as in Johnson's case, might surpass de minimis thresholds, especially when consistently performed for over an hour daily. Despite his collective effort, courts may scrutinize whether the activity is essential to his managerial role or a personal choice. The employer's knowledge and acceptance of this early work influence whether it must be compensated. Given Johnson's early arrival to prepare for the workday, courts may consider it compensable unless it is proven to be a de minimis, incidental activity.

Overtime Policy and Exemption Validity

Fulma’s strict no-overtime policy complicates Johnson's exempt status. The FLSA allows employers to designate employees as exempt if they meet specific criteria, primarily if their primary duties are managerial or administrative, and if they customarily exercise independent judgment. However, if an employer maintains a policy against overtime but an employee frequently works over 40 hours, questions arise regarding whether the exemption truly applies. Enforcing a no-overtime policy in practice can threaten the exemption’s validity, particularly if the employee regularly works beyond the set hours. Courts may view the policy as an attempt to circumvent overtime obligations, thus risking misclassification. Therefore, Fulma's policy does not automatically exempt them from paying for overtime worked, especially when the employee clearly exceeds 40 hours regularly, making it necessary for the employer to reevaluate job classifications and enforce compliance with FLSA standards.

Case 3: ERISA and Retirement Plan Modification

Fulma's intent to tie the company retreat cruise to the $500 monthly pension option, and to retroactively apply this to the lump sum plan, raises concerns under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA regulates employer-sponsored pension plans, requiring that plan modifications do not negatively impact participants’ accrued benefits unless approved through a proper process. The plan as described appears to offer two distinct benefit options—monthly payments or a lump sum—each with separate features. Tying the cruise benefit solely to the monthly option and retroactively applying it to the lump sum plan could be viewed as a benefit reduction or a form of plan manipulation intended to incentivize one option over another. ERISA mandates that plan amendments be made in good faith, with full disclosure to participants, and with compliance with fiduciary standards. Retroactive changes that alter accrued rights or benefits without proper procedures would likely violate ERISA’s fiduciary duties and anti-cutback rules, rendering such modifications unlawful.

Case 4: Unfair Labor Practices and Employer Responses to Union Activity

Fulma's responses to union organizing activities—such as prohibiting employee discussion of the union during work hours, removing flyers, requiring approval for posting materials, and stopping employees from distributing union buttons—may constitute unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA protects employees’ rights to organize, discuss unionization, and distribute union materials in the workplace, especially during non-work time. Restricting employees from discussing union matters or distributing pro-union materials, especially when such activities are conducted off-duty and in areas like parking lots or during breaks, can be seen as an interference with protected conduct. The company's policy requiring prior approval to post materials, combined with selective removal of union flyers, may be interpreted as censorship and suppression of union activity. Additionally, discouraging employees from passing out union buttons on off-duty time infringes on their rights. The active suppression of union campaigning and the restrictions on organizing activities likely constitute unfair labor practices, violating federal labor law.

References

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
• Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
• Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.
• National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.
• ADA Compliance Guidelines, U.S. Department of Justice.
• FLSA Overtime Regulations, U.S. Department of Labor.
• ERISA Requirements and Fiduciary Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
• Union Organizing and Unfair Labor Practices, National Labor Relations Board.
• Legal Standards for Exempt Employees under FLSA, Department of Labor.
• Assessment of Pre-shift Work and De Minimis Activities in Wage Laws, U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts.