Read Each Of The Following Cases Below And Answer The Questi

Read Each Of The Following Cases Below And Answer the Questions After

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. Case 1 The first case involves Joe Stromboli. Joe is a delivery driver for Fulma, 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 the team meetings. Joe’s manager was unsure whether to proceed, so she referred the case to the Fulma 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. Fulma's job description for their delivery drivers state that the employee must maintain a CDL. Drivers are also expected to take orders from some employees. This is usually done using walkie talkies. However, Joe does have a cell phone capable of receiving text messages and emails that could allow him to take orders. He has also offered to carry pens and paper around so that communication could also be done this way. Joe being deaf has no effect on him maintaining his CDL, and the firm expects it would make these accommodations fairly cheaply. 1. Can Joe establish a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate disability? Be sure to list the elements of the claim and to show how you reached your conclusion. 2. What mistakes—if any—were made? How can these be corrected in the future? Case 2 The second case involves Johnson. Johnson is a floor supervisor in the plant. 55% of the time he is engaged with ordinary production. However, 45% of the time he is engaged with supervising his zone, preparing schedules, and dealing with personnel disputes. If there is a problem, he is responsible for mobilizing his zone to resolve equitable. He also spends times meeting with his superiors in order to provide reports on efficiency of employees and on any other problems that have arisen. For this, he receives 10% more money than his subordinates. He had earlier been classified as an FSLA exempt employee. Now, he is challenging that designation. Although Fulma has a strict no-overtime policy, Johnson has been showing up to work early to drink a cup of coffee, smoke a cigarette, make sure schedules are prepared, doors are unlocked, and preparing workstations for the day ahead. He typically arrives an hour early to perform these tasks. Fulma knew that Johnson was coming in early, and working 45 hours a week. 3. Is Johnson an exempt employee? Be sure to list and discuss the applicable legal standards as well as some of the factors the court will consider. 4. Was Johnson’s pre-shift work preliminary? 5. Was Johnson’s work de minimis? 6. Does Fulma’s policy against overtime mean they don’t have to pay? Case 3 Fulma wishes to modify their pension plan. The current plan allows employees to either receive $500 a month or $100,000 upfront upon retirement. Both plans also offer an annual ticket to the company retreat cruise. Seeking to incentives people to accept $500 a month, Fulma wishes to tie the ticket to employees receiving $500 a month only to apply retroactively to $100,000 lump sum plan. 7. Does this violate ERISA? Why or why not? Case 4 Fulma became aware that a union organizing campaign was underway in one of its plants. A union supporter was called in to a meeting with plant managers. At the end of the meeting, when the employee asked what he was supposed to do if others wanted to talk with him about unionizing, he was told “[Y]ou’re to just work and not talk about the Union.†After union supporters posted material on company bulletin boards, the flyers were repeatedly taken down. The company then issued a policy requiring all employees to obtain approval before placing any material on the boards. Subsequently, the company’s practice was to refuse to post material of any kind from employees. A few months later, several off-duty employees attempted to distribute prounion flyers in the company parking lot but were stopped by company officials. They were warned that they were in violation of company policy. Around the same time, employees passed out union buttons in the plant and left some of them near a time clock for other employees to pick up. When company officials learned of this activity, they quickly called a meeting and warned one union advocate that “I don’t want to catch you passing [buttons] out, Okay, I don’t want to see them laying around. You can pass them out when you’re outside, on your own time, but when you’re here working, you, you, need to be working.†The officials said that this action was taken to keep the plant free of clutter and trash. 8. Has Fulma engaged in unfair labor practices in its response to the union organizing activity?

Paper For Above instruction

Analyzing the legal issues presented in the cases involving Fulma Corporation requires a detailed understanding of employment law, including accommodation obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employee classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This essay discusses each case's legal considerations, potential pitfalls, and compliance strategies to guide Fulma in aligning its HR policies with applicable laws.

Case 1: Failure to Reasonably Accommodate a Deaf Employee

Joe Stromboli’s case hinges on the ADA's requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. To establish a claim, Joe must demonstrate that he has a disability as defined by the ADA (which he does, being deaf post-accident), is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with accommodation, and that the employer failed to provide such accommodation. The critical issue is whether the accommodation proposed—using text messaging or pen and paper—is reasonable and whether the employer's rejection was justified solely based on his deafness.

The employer’s rejection appears to lack consideration of alternatives. The fact that Joe has offered feasible accommodations—such as carrying a notepad and using electronic communication—is strong evidence that an accommodation was indeed reasonable. Additionally, the job description does not specify that communication via walkie-talkie is an essential requirement—especially given the availability of alternative methods that would allow Joe to perform his duties effectively. Therefore, Joe could very likely establish a claim for failure to accommodate because the employer did not explore viable options before terminating him.

The errors made include the immediate termination without assessing reasonable accommodations, and denying accommodations based solely on the disability indication ("Joe’s deaf") without considering his proposed alternatives. To prevent future issues, employers should conduct individualized assessments to evaluate whether accommodating a disabled employee is feasible, engaging in the interactive process mandated by the ADA, rather than making assumptions based solely on medical opinions or disabilities.

Case 2: Employee Classification and Work Hours

Determining whether Johnson qualifies as an exempt employee under the FLSA involves analyzing the criteria of executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. The FLSA stipulates that employees earning above a certain threshold ($684 per week as of 2023) and performing exempt duties are not entitled to overtime pay. Johnson's activities include supervising production, preparing schedules, and managing personnel issues—typical administrative functions. However, the fact that he arrives early and performs pre-shift tasks raises questions about whether those tasks are preliminary or integral to his primary duties.

Courts consider if pre-job activities are directly related to core job functions and whether they are part of the principal work performed or just preliminary preparations. Since Johnson’s early arrival involves tasks like preparing schedules and unlocking doors—activities essential to his supervisory role—they are unlikely to be considered de minimis or preliminary. Further, his role involves overseeing a zone and supervising personnel, meeting the economic reality test for exemption.

His work hours also need scrutiny. Although the employer's policy prohibits overtime, Johnson's early hours may classify as compensable work if they are required or permitted by the employer. Courts often view consistently working beyond regular hours, especially with employer knowledge, as indicative of a non-exempt status unless the employee is properly classified.

Regarding de minimis work, the early arrival hours are not trivial or insignificant enough to escape compensation. Fulma’s policy against paying for overtime is potentially non-compliant if Johnson’s early work is deemed compensable and the employer knew or should have known about these hours. Employers must ensure proper classification, considering the actual duties and hours worked, and cannot deny overtime compensation based solely on internal policies if the law requires otherwise.

Case 3: ERISA and Pension Plan Modification

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employer-sponsored pension plans to ensure they are maintained fairly and transparently. The scenario involves Fulma’s plan that offers two options: a monthly payout or a lump sum, along with the provision of an annual cruise ticket.

Changing the conditions of the pension plan to tie the cruise ticket exclusively to receiving the monthly benefit (and retroactively applying it to the lump sum plan) raises ERISA compliance concerns. ERISA mandates that employers provide clear, written disclosure of plan terms, and any modification must adhere to the plan’s formal amendment procedures. Retroactively altering the eligibility for benefits—such as the cruise ticket—without proper process or participant consent, can be considered a violation of ERISA’s fiduciary duties.

Furthermore, tying benefits to certain choices without proper notice could be viewed as an improper modification. Employers cannot unilaterally alter plans in a way that diminishes participants’ accrued rights or benefits, especially retroactively. Such actions risk violating ERISA’s anti-retroactivity principles unless explicitly permitted by the plan documents and executed following fiduciary standards. Therefore, the proposed plan modification likely breaches ERISA unless it follows proper procedures and is communicated transparently to all plan participants.

Case 4: Union Organizing and Unfair Labor Practices

The actions of Fulma during the union organizing campaign constitute potential unfair labor practices under the NLRA. The company’s efforts to restrict union activities—such as prohibiting employees from posting or distributing union materials and restricting union advocates to outside activities—may violate employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection.

The policy requiring prior approval for all materials on bulletin boards and refusing to post any employee materials effectively suppresses employee free speech related to union activities. Similarly, stopping employees from distributing union buttons and warning them about their conduct outside of working hours could be viewed as interference with protected rights. The employer’s actions, justified by claims of maintaining order or reducing clutter, do not justify restrictions on lawful union activity. The NLRA prohibits employers from interfering with or restraint of employees’ rights to organize, bargain collectively, or engage in union activities.

Furthermore, the employer's warning to the union supporter and restricting their activity to outside of work hours could be considered an attempt to curb union organization efforts unlawfully. The cumulative effect of these actions suggests Fulma engaged in unfair labor practices, potentially violating the NLRA’s protections for employees’ concerted activities and union rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, each case presents distinct HR legal challenges that require careful analysis and proactive compliance strategies. Employers like Fulma must ensure that they implement accommodations consistent with ADA obligations, properly classify employees under FLSA standards, adhere to ERISA regulations in modifying benefit plans, and respect employees’ rights under the NLRA. Correcting mistakes, such as conducting individualized assessments, properly classifying employees, following legal procedures for benefit modifications, and refraining from interference with union activities, are essential steps to ensure legal compliance and foster a fair workplace environment.

References

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
• Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
• Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
• National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
• Martin, A. (2020). Employment Law: With Cases, Law, and Practice. Cengage Learning.
• Goldberger, D. (2019). Employment Law. Foundation Press.
• Harlan, D. (2021). The FLSA and Employer Responsibilities. Journal of Law & Employment.
• Shaw, D. (2018). ERISA Compliance and Updates. Employee Benefits Law Journal.
• Glynn, T. (2022). Labor Relations and Union Activities. HR Legal Review.
• United States Department of Labor. (2023). Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheets.