Resulting June 2017 Consent What Eeoc Is All Abou
I need a respond to the two discussion below It need to be separate respond to both of them. I will paste them below in bold :
First discussion:
Analysis
Susan was dismissed from her accounting position with Ajax Corp. and claims that she was fired for investigating a potentially dangerous product being developed by the company. Ajax Corp. claims that Susan was fired for not doing her job as an accountant. I am going to assume that Ajax Corp is a private company and at at-will employment applies to this corporation. In an at-will employment state, and employer can terminate an employee with or without reason, as long as the employer does not violate the employee’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
If Susan made a legitimate complaint to the EEOC, or provided information in a public policy investigation (whistleblower) and was terminated for doing so, that is retaliation. In other words, there must be some causal connection between Susan’s termination and a complaint of discrimination. If Susan is terminated due to “not doing her job” and Susan had never made any complaints of discrimination or provided information in a discrimination investigation, then Susan would not be able to file a retaliation suit against Ajax Corp.
In order for Susan to win her case, she would have to prove that retaliatory discrimination took place due to her engaging in a protected activity such as public policy. Retaliation under EEO Law occurs when an employee either opposes an illegal employment practice or participates in filing a formal claim, and the employer subsequently engages in an adverse activity against the employee for those actions (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2011).
There are three requirements for retaliation cases specified by Section 704a of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1991). In the first prong, the plaintiff must engage in a protected activity by either complaining about a specific illegal employment practice (opposition) or filing a formal claim of discrimination (participation). In the second prong, after engaging in the protected activity, the plaintiff must suffer an adverse employment action from the defendant. Finally, in the third prong the plaintiff must be able to show a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
According to the Lawson and Zang v. FRM LLC case, the plaintiffs, Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang, brought a lawsuit against their former employer, FMR LLC, a subcontractor of Fidelity Investments (Fidelity), alleging that the company unlawfully fired them in retaliation for filing complaints. Both Lawson and Zang told the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) that they believed that Fidelity had violated certain rules and regulations set forth by both the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and federal laws relating to fraud against shareholders. Sometime after filing these complaints, Zang was terminated for unsatisfactory performance. Lawson filed several retaliations claims against her employer with OSHA, and resigned in 2007, claiming that she had been constructively discharged.
Zang and Lawson each filed separate actions against their former employers in district court. They alleged that the defendants violated “whistleblower” protection sections of the Sarbanes-Oakley Act by taking retaliatory actions against them. The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the whistleblower provisions extended to employees of private agents, contractors, and subcontractors to public companies and that the plaintiffs had engaged in protected activity under the statute. The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed the decision. Looking at both Congressional intent and the plain meaning of the statute, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were not protected employees under the act.
In Hartford, CT, a health care facility did not adequately respond to a December 2011 tuberculosis exposure. Accordingly, a VP of Operations, the Director of Nursing, and a Program Coordinator worked together to raise the awareness of employees, management, and the public regarding the potential dangers of the exposure. Rather than applaud the three employees for their efforts, the CEO of the health center terminated them.
The subsequent OSHA whistleblower investigation revealed that the health center improperly fired the employees in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the resulting June 2017 consent judgment stipulated payment of lost wages (approximately $125,000) and neutral letters of reference.
As the defendant, Ajax Corp could argue legitimate non-discriminatory reason. Ajax Corp would have to prove that Susan was investigating a “potentially dangerous substance” and show evidence that the substance was indeed not dangerous. The corporation would also have to prove there was no casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse reaction by providing sufficient documentation proving they have coached Susan about her job performance in the past.
Management Tips:
Accordingly, Ajax Corp LLC needs to write an anti-retaliation policy that not only outlines what retaliation is, but also provides specific examples of retaliation that managers and supervisors may not have otherwise realized were legally actionable. After making these adjustments to the policy, Ajax should provide regular training to executives, managers, supervisors and employees on your anti-retaliation policy. Also, Ajax should create a mechanism through which employees can report concerns and instances of retaliation. Lastly, preach civility, which can help reduce incidents of retaliatory behavior. It is imperative that Ajax implement some of these changes to avoid future retaliation law suits. According to Solano & Kleiner, 2003, when a retaliation case ends in the favor of the plaintiff, there can be a negative impact on employee morale and productivity.
References:
Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2011). Managers be warned! Third-party retaliation lawsuits and the United
States Supreme Court. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2, 8-17.
Civil Rights Act of 1991 § 704a, 42 U.S.C. (1991).
Hospital Safety Insider (Links to an external site.), June 22, 2017. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from http://www.hcpro.com
Lawson and Zang v. FMR, LLC. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 23, 2019,
from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-3 (Links to an external site.)
Solano, F., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Understanding and preventing workplace retaliation. Management
Research News, 26, 206-211.
Second Discussion:
Analysis
Ajax Corp. is a privately owned company that is located in Houston, Texas. Susan Conley is a loyal employee at Ajax Corp. where she has been an Accountant for the last past 8 years. In the past couple of weeks Susan realized that she was beginning to be very suspicious of some activities that led her to investigate what was happening on her job this led her to report those activates to her Supervisor. A week later Susan was called into her Supervisors office where she was informed that she was being terminated for unsatisfactory work. Susan believes that her termination was wrongful discharge and a form of retaliation against her claims that she presented to her Supervisor about her suspicious.
In case Carter V. Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc. Carter who was a Store Manager at Fred Meyers Jewelry Company claims that he was wrongfully discharged. Carter was on FMLA due to being hospitalized for almost an entire month. When Carter was able to return to work on February 15th his Supervisor and loss prevention Manager called him into a meeting for a discussion about some adjustment he made on his Assistant Manager’s timesheet. With the effects of Carter adjusting his Assistant Manager’s timesheet he was suspended then later terminated for “falsification of company records”. The evidence shows that the new krones system that was recently established for time keeping proposes was not accurate. Carter was never disciplined for missing any punches before now or, any other employees disciplined for not filling out the proper paperwork affiliated with missing punches. It is presented that because Carter used FMLA for sick leave that his employer retaliated against him for doing so. By way of Oregon law the courts could not find any causes for wrongful termination in this matter so therefore this case was ultimately dismissed.
In case Boyland v. Corrections Corp. of America Anthony Boyland a former employee filed a claim against his former employer Corrections Corporation of America. Anthony was an African- American and claims that he was fired because he filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against his former employer. In this case the courts presented that there was a two and a half year gap between Anthony filing the discrimination claim and his termination. In this matter the district court granted summary judgment of Boyland’s claim that he was fired due to retaliation and upon review of the records of both parties briefs the courts affirmed.
Ajax Corp. claims that they fired Susan due to poor job performance. Since this is the case that her former employers are providing for terminating her. It will be a hard task for Susan to prove that her poor job performance was just the underlying of the genuine reason for her termination. As the plaintiff Susan would have to be able to provide evidence to the courts that the company had knowledge and the she was moving forward with investigating the potentially dangerous product (Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 2014). As the defendant they would have to provide evidence that what the plaintiff was investigating was not dangerous for the company or the employees. It was a top secret project that if it would have got out would have caused the company to lose out on a major business deal.
Management Tips
The first tip is that Ajax Corp. needs to establish a policy against retaliation that is clear and spells out everything the employees need to know. The second tip for Ajax Corp. is that they need to communicate with their complaining employee to see the issue that is at hand. Allow employees to see that you are taking what they are telling you seriously and that you will handle the complaint to your best ability. Any complaints that are received should be kept confidential and always make sure they are documented properly.
References:
Carter v. Fred Meyer Jewelers, Inc. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from https://1-next-westlaw-com.libproxy.troy.edu/Document/Ifa4e32602c0811e9bda4c132358d93d4 (Links to an external site.)
Boyland v. Corrections Corp. of America Retrieved March 24, 2019 from https://1-next-westlaw-com.libproxy.troy.edu/Document/Ia908ff25a15711dfa765bd122ea7dc89 (Links to an external site.)
Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (2014). Workplace retaliation: A review of emerging case law. Psychologist-Manager Journal (American Psychological Association), 17(2), 71–78. https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1037/mgr00000…