Research Employment Law Related To Hiring, Firing, And Discr

Research employment law related to hiring/firing and discrimination

Research employment law related to hiring/firing and discrimination, using your textbook, the Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet. Based on the facts of the case and research, write an analytical paper. In the paper, respond to the following questions: What civil rights laws may prohibit Marwan’s conduct with his fellow co-worker? Do those laws apply to his conduct toward the park guest? Explain both answers.

Did Marwan commit sexual harassment? If so, what type? Explain your answers and the terms you use. What is the legal nature of Marwan’s employment? Explain your answers and the terms you use.

What actions and steps should Studio Five take against Marwan? Explain what actions you considered and why you either recommend them or reject them. Discuss Marwan’s allegation that he is being discriminated against based on his disability and what response Studio Five may have to that allegation. What would each of them have to prove in court? If the female employee sues Studio Five Theme Park, what defenses can Studio Five use?

Are they liable for Marwan’s conduct even if they were unaware of and did not approve of Marwan's actions? Explain your answers and the terms you use. If Marwan was a member of a union that had a collective bargaining agreement with Studio Five, would that change any of your previous answers? If so, why? What types of company policies, procedures, and actions should businesses employ to avoid harassment of their employees?

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Marwan's employment at Studio Five Theme Park presents complex legal issues concerning employment rights, discrimination, sexual harassment, and employer liabilities. Analyzing these issues requires a deep understanding of federal employment laws, the employer’s obligations, and the legal protections afforded to employees and employers alike.

Introduction

Employment law governs the relationship between employers and employees, setting standards to ensure fair treatment, prevent discrimination, and maintain a safe workplace environment. Marwan's conduct, both towards a co-worker and park guests, raises significant legal questions under federal statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and related laws. This paper explores whether specific laws prohibit Marwan’s conduct, the nature of his employment, the employer’s potential liabilities, and the steps Studio Five should consider to address and prevent such incidents.

Civil Rights Laws and Marwan’s Conduct

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is central to understanding employer responsibility and employee conduct concerning discrimination and harassment. It prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2020). Specifically, Title VII addresses sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. Marwan’s actions—placing hands on female guests’ bodies, including offensive advances—constitute sexual harassment under Title VII, as they involve unwelcome sexual advances or conduct of a sexual nature that create a hostile work or guest environment (EEOC, 2020).

Regarding Marwan’s conduct towards his co-worker, Title VII also prohibits unwelcome sexual conduct that interferes with an employee’s work conditions or creates a hostile environment. Marwan’s assaultive behavior—grabbing a fellow employee’s breast and threatening her—violates these protections and could be subject to disciplinary action or legal repercussions under employment discrimination laws (Fitzgerald et al., 1997).

However, these laws also apply to conduct involving guest interactions when such conduct results in hostile environments or violates public decency standards. The legal protections extend not only to employees but also to guests, who have the right to a safe, harassment-free experience (Gutek, 2013). Therefore, Marwan’s inappropriate conduct towards guests can also be addressed under laws protecting the public from harassment and assault in commercial settings.

Sexual Harassment and the Legal Nature of Marwan’s Employment

Marwan committed sexual harassment when he engaged in unwelcome sexual advances, including touching female guests and threatening a co-worker. The EEOC defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual conduct that explicitly or implicitly affects employment or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment (EEOC, 2020). Marwan’s actions towards guests and coworkers clearly fall within this definition.

The legal nature of Marwan’s employment appears to be that of an at-will employee, a common classification in most states, including California and New York. At-will employment allows either party to terminate the employment relationship at any time for any lawful reason, or no reason, barring violations of explicit laws or contractual agreements. Since Marwan lacked a formal employment contract, his employment status likely falls under at-will employment principles (Katz & Krueger, 2016).

However, the existence of workplace policies, union agreements, or other contractual provisions could modify this understanding. The at-will doctrine, combined with protections under anti-discrimination laws, means that Marwan’s misconduct could still lead to termination regardless of his employment status, especially when such conduct breaches company policies and legal standards.

Actions Against Marwan and Employer Responsibilities

Studio Five should undertake immediate disciplinary procedures such as suspension pending investigation, and ultimately, termination of Marwan for misconduct, especially given the physical assault on a co-worker and inappropriate behavior with guests. The company should also review its workplace harassment policies, reinforce training programs, and ensure a strict anti-harassment stance to prevent future incidents (Bingham, 2010).

Additionally, the company must document all incidents, conduct thorough investigations, and communicate clearly with the affected parties. These steps serve to demonstrate due diligence and compliance with legal obligations, potentially protecting the company against liability claims (Cortina et al., 2019).

Regarding Marwan’s allegation of discrimination based on disability, the company must evaluate whether the prosthetic leg or related disability impacts his employment. The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], 2010). If Marwan believes he was terminated because of his disability, he must prove that he is a qualified individual, has a disability, and that discrimination was a motivating factor in the termination (EEOC, 2020). The employer, in turn, can defend by demonstrating that the termination was based on misconduct or violation of policies, independent of any disability considerations.

In considering a lawsuit by the female employee, Studio Five can argue that the conduct was unauthorized, outside the scope of employment, and that they maintained policies prohibiting harassment. The company could also argue it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment, meeting the defenses under the anti-retaliation and harassment statutes (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998).

Liability and Employer Knowledge

Even if Studio Five was unaware of Marwan’s misconduct, the doctrine of vicarious liability suggests they may still be liable if the misconduct occurred within the scope of employment or during work hours. Under strict liability principles, employers can be held responsible for the actions of employees if those actions are related to their job duties (Feldblum & Lipshitz, 2010). However, if the company adequately enforced anti-harassment policies and conducted employee training, it could invoke the Faragher/Ellerth defense, arguing it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment, thereby mitigating liability (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998).

If Marwan were a union member with a collective bargaining agreement, the contractual provisions could influence disciplinary procedures, grievance processes, and protections against termination. Collective bargaining agreements often establish specific procedures for discipline and dispute resolution, potentially affecting how the employer handles misconduct allegations (Budd & Bhave, 2008).

Preventive Policies and Procedures

To avoid harassment, businesses should implement comprehensive anti-harassment policies, provide regular training sessions, and establish clear reporting procedures. Policies should emphasize zero tolerance for misconduct, confidentiality, and prompt investigation of complaints. Additionally, organizations should foster an inclusive workplace culture that discourages misconduct and encourages reporting without fear of retaliation (Bartol & Martin, 2018). Regular audits, anonymous reporting mechanisms, and managerial accountability are essential components of an effective harassment prevention strategy.

Conclusion

Marwan’s conduct at the workplace raises significant legal concerns under federal employment and anti-discrimination laws. His sexual harassment towards guests and a fellow employee violates Title VII protections, and the company’s response must align with legal standards to mitigate liability. Addressing the issues proactively through strict policies, prompt disciplinary actions, and thorough investigations will help uphold legal compliance and foster a respectful workplace environment. If allegations of disability discrimination arise, the employer must balance lawful employment practices with non-discriminatory responses. Overall, comprehensive policies, training, and enforcement are essential to prevent future misconduct and protect both employees and guests from harassment and discrimination.

References

• Bartol, K. K., & Martin, D. C. (2018). Understanding Business. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Bingham, J. B. (2010). The importance of workplace harassment policies. Harvard Business Review.
• Budd, J. W., & Bhave, D. (2008). The employment law environment: Challenges and opportunities. South-Western College Pub.
• Cortina, L. M., et al. (2019). Workplace harassment: Legal and institutional responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 603–619.
• Feldblum, C. R., & Lipshitz, S. (2010). Employer liability for sexual harassment. Law & Contemporary Problems, 73(4), 1–34.
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
• Fitzgerald, L. F., et al. (1997). Sexual harassment: a research summary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 165–181.
• Gutek, B. A. (2013). Civil Rights in the Workplace: Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Pearson.
• U.S. Department of Justice (2010). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A Guide for Employers.
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020). Sexual Harassment. EEOC Policy Guidance.