This statement of position letter represents the position of Ace Glass Company (ACE), the respondent in the above listed case. Jim Bowersmithes (“claimant”), asserts that ACE terminated his employment (1) Based on his age; (2) Treated unequally compared to women. These charges are without merit, lack evidence to support his allegations of discrimination in any form and should be dismissed since (1) The claimant, has missed a total of 16 workdays for various reasons, including one no show/no call. (2) The claimant has missed three mandatory safety meetings during this time; (3) The claimant’s personnel file contains two written reprimands about his attendance, including failure to attend three mandatory safety meetings, the latest one states …show more content…
Ace Glass Company will not discriminate against any individual in regard to recruiting, hiring, promotion, transfer, work assignments, performance measurements, the work environment, job training, discipline, discharge, wages, benefits, or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment. These policies are described in Company Policy HR300.1.1 plus page 4 of the Employee Handbook. At hiring, employee is required to read, sign, and date the Employee Handbook Acknowledgement form, which is placed in the employee’s personnel …show more content…
In compliance with ACE’s obligation to nondiscrimination practice, due diligence was served by respectful coaching, counseling and equal opportunity to correct past behavior, regardless of past incidents. See Hardwick v. EEOC, Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, (CA, 2012) (gender discrimination), Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc. (D. HA, 2012) (age discrimination, discharge). In this case, it simply is impossible for Charging Party to establish a prima facie case of age and gender discrimination. Hence, his charge must be dismissed. The claimant’s failure to correct attendance issues resulted in his termination. Thus, we respectfully request the EEOC find “No Fault” and dismiss the charges in their
In the case of Michael T. Vandall, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Trinity Hospitals, a corporation, and Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., the issue is about retaliatory discharge. It deals with problems with Trinity Hospital in North Dakota, Dr. Margaret Nordell and Dr. Michael Vandall, both physicians working in the OB-GYN department.
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
David Dunlap, a 52-year old African American male with 25 year boilermaker experience, 15 years of which include foreman experience, brought suit under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination by the TVA after being looked over after interviewing for positions within the TVA. The district court agreed that “Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants” (Walsh, 2010). The case was heard by the 6th District Court of Appeals and that court “affirmed the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district court’s award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap” (Walsh, ...
Showalter, J. S. (2012). The Law of Healthcare Administration (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
The plaintiff in this action, Mr. Bell, is requesting from the Commission, to award compensation for his injury under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Mr. Bell, will be referred to as Bell, filed a workers’ compensation claim against defendant, Safe Place Children’s Home, which will be referred to as the Safe Place. Bell subsequently submitted a claim to the Safe Place human resources department and was denied. Bell’s injury is compensable because Safe Place mandated Bell’s physical presence and participation in a football game at an annual picnic which benefited Safe Place by socializing, boosting morale, and team building. An injury arises out of employment when the employee is expressly mandated at the recreational and social event and the
On 12-20-2015, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the claimant stated she was undergoing intense training with Mr. Liu and thought that Mr. Liu, was singling her out compared to co-worker, Ms. Celeste Gutierrez, singling her out. The claimant felt “undue pressure” from Mr. Liu, who continuously pointed out every mistake she made throughout her training. She said that Mr. Liu would “talk down to her.”
Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction are the poor-quality patient care that Tomcik received and Tomcik’s health being at risk. Once engaged in a doctor-patient relationship, physicians are obligated to provide the best possible care for the patient by utilizing their skills and knowledge as expected from a competent physician under the same or similar conditions (“What Is a Doctor’s Duty of Care?” n.d.). However, in Tomcik’s situation, Dr. Evans did not deliver high-quality care, for he administered a perfunctory breast examination and thus did not follow standard protocols. There is evidence of indifference conveyed by Dr. Evans, and the lack of proper care towards Tomcik is an issue that can be scrutinized and judged appropriately. Additionally, Tomcik’s health was at risk due to the failure of a proper physical evaluation and the incredibly long delay in diagnosis and treatment. The negligence from Dr. Evans, along with the lack of medical attention sought out by Tomcik after she had first discovered the lump in her breast, may contribute to Tomcik’s life being in danger as well as the emotional anguish she may have felt during that time period. Overall, the incident of Tomcik’s expectations from the original physician and other employees at the institution not being met is an ethical issue that should be dealt with
In the assigned hypothetical scenario, John was dismissed and believes he was discriminated against. By understanding the different types of discrimination and the legal recourse of individuals discriminated against organizations can better prepare them selves to avoid similar situations with their employees.
Schipani, C. (2013). Class Action Litigation After Dukes: In Search of a Remedy for Gender Discrimination in Employment. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 46(4), 1249-1277.
Professional practitioners need to be competent, their doctoring skills and knowledge must be up to date and maintain a good relationship with their patients and their colleagues. The patients’ rights and declaration civil rights enlists expectations of a professional medical practitioner in the field. To practice professionalism, the medical practitioners have to come to terms with the fact that every individual; race, color, creed, national origin, sex, an honorably discharged veteran, sexual orientation or any physical disability has a right to any medical attention available and should not be discriminated in any way. Matters of concern arise whether we as the professionals really adhere to the set laws protecting rights of patients and their civil rights (Washington State Legislature, 2014) (Washington State Legislature, 2013).
In addition, PROS instructed Kincade not to work from home in an effort to improve his performance. This is a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the personnel action about which he complains. When Elliott Williams had trouble finding Kincade at work after Kincade had been assigned to a new project, Williams believed he needed to be at work to improve his performance and instructed him not to work from home. Williams Aff. ¶ 14. PROS also had a legitimate reason for requesting a doctor's note based on his attendance issues. Kincade sometimes stated that the reason that he showed up late to work and/or left early without notifying his manager was because he had doctor's appointments. As a result, Williams required a doctor's note for the time away from work. Williams Aff. ¶ 16. Because Kincade has insufficient evidence that these reasons are false or that retaliation was a motivating factor, his retaliation claim fails as a matter of law.
Siemens is a German conglomerate that specialise in electronics and electrical engineering. They currently operate in four different sectors, these being Healthcare, Industry, energy and Infrastructure & Cities sector (Siemans a). They are represented in 190 countries (Siemens b), employ around 362,000 employees (Siemens c) and in 2013 achieved a revenue of €75,882 million and a net income of €4,409 million (Siemens d). This essay will focus on Siemen’s energy sector.
All over the world, we hear about people treating each other prejudicially depending on their background, ethnicity, or sex orientation. Workplaces should be free from all personal biases but unfortunately, we hear about employees being discriminated against, almost, on a daily basis. Workplace discrimination can be described as treating an individual or a group of people differently than others. It also can take more serious and threatening forms such as sexual harassment. It can be expressed in the form of offensive jokes, unwelcomed body contacts, inappropriate gestures, or even direct sexual contact.
Newman, Constance. "Time to address gender discrimination and inequality in the health workforce." Human Resources for Health, vol. 12, no. 25, 6 May 2014, PMC. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-12-25. Accessed 4 July 2017.