Unit VII Journal Instructions Respond To One Of The Two Opti

Unit Vii Journalinstructionsrespond To One Of The Two Options

Respond to one of the two options: Option 1: Thomas is a prominent leader in his organization. Over the past several years, Thomas’ weight has fluctuated from morbidly underweight to morbidly overweight and back to morbidly underweight. The organization has given Thomas a performance improvement plan due to attendance issues resulting from concerns of the weight fluctuations. Thomas has consulted with an attorney regarding whether there is possible discrimination occurring by the organization. Do you think the organization is discriminating against Thomas? If you were the employer and you were truly concerned about Thomas, how would you handle this situation? Is a performance improvement plan appropriate here? Why, or why not? Option 2: Sally and Roger have worked as a team in their organization for several years. Sally is age 64. Roger is age 67. Both are in fair health. Roger has type II diabetes and takes heart medication. Sally is a cancer survivor from 10 years ago with no recurrences. The team has made significant revenue for the company over the last 40 years, independently and collectively. The company does not have a written policy regarding mandatory retirement at age 65. Both Sally and Roger have slowed in their productivity though perform well above expectations by the organizational standard set. At the recent annual performance evaluation, Sally was encouraged by her boss (an owner in the organization) to look to retirement due to her increased health issues. Roger was encouraged to retire due to his work slowing down and increased errors in his judgement. Such issues had never been mentioned before. Do you think there is a viable case for discrimination regarding health and disability? Do you think there is a case of ageism to be considered regarding the organization and the owner? If you were the employer, how would you handle these issues? Your journal entry must be at least 200 words. No references or citations are necessary.

Paper For Above instruction

In addressing the ethical and legal considerations surrounding workplace discrimination, the scenarios involving Thomas, Sally, and Roger exemplify complex issues related to health, age, and organizational policies. These cases highlight the importance of understanding discrimination laws, fair treatment, and the ethical responsibilities of employers in fostering inclusive work environments.

In the case of Thomas, a leader experiencing significant weight fluctuations, the question arises whether the organization’s actions constitute discrimination. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, discrimination based on weight alone is generally not protected unless linked to a disability (EEOC, 2008). However, if Thomas's weight fluctuations are related to a medical condition, such as an eating disorder or hormonal imbalance, considerations of disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations come into play (Gould & Shechtman, 2010). The performance improvement plan (PIP), intended to address attendance issues, might be viewed as potentially discriminatory if it disproportionally targets health-related challenges not directly affecting work performance or if it fails to consider medical circumstances. As an employer genuinely concerned about Thomas, a balanced approach would involve assessing whether the attendance issues are medically justified and exploring accommodations rather than punitive measures. A supportive, health-conscious approach aligned with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would be more appropriate than solely relying on a PIP (ADA, 1998). This ensures fairness and compliance with anti-discrimination statutes while supporting employee health.

Regarding Sally and Roger, their long-term contributions and age-specific challenges raise questions of ageism and discrimination based on health and disability. The decision to encourage retirement due to health issues or declining performance must be scrutinized under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA, 1967). Although neither has a mandatory retirement policy, sudden encouragement to retire based on age-related health concerns may constitute age discrimination if not substantiated by performance data (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). Furthermore, singling out Sally for retirement considerations due to her health status while promoting Roger despite similar age and health issues could reflect ageist bias, especially if the decision is influenced by stereotypes rather than objective performance data. More ethically and legally sound management would involve objective performance evaluations and providing accommodations for health issues where possible, rather than premature retirement encouragement. It’s crucial for the organization to create policies that support aging employees and prevent discrimination based on age or health (Taylor et al., 2013).

In conclusion, these cases demonstrate the importance of balancing organizational interests with legal compliance and ethical standards. Employers must recognize the potential for discrimination and implement inclusive policies that respect employee rights, promote health and well-being, and prevent ageist biases. Such efforts foster a fair, diverse, and productive workplace environment that values contributions regardless of age or health status.

References

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA).
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2008). Enforcement guidance: Reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under the ADA.
• Gould, S. J., & Shechtman, E. (2010). Disability discrimination law: Legislative, judicial, and regulatory developments. Harvard Law Review, 123(2), 349-392.
• Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes and employment discrimination. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 319-332.
• Taylor, P., Schalk, R., & Peng, Z. (2013). Managing aging employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(20), 3859-3877.
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634.