In this case Pamela Huber was a Wal-Mart Employee, working as a dry grocery order filler earning $13.00 per hour, including a $0.50 shift differential. While working she suffered a permanent injury to her right arm and hand, and was not able to fulfill her duties as an order filler. She later applied for a router position, an equivalent and vacant position but was rejected. The position was given to a more qualified candidate. Wal-Mart reassigned her to another facility and in a different position, a maintenance associate position making $6.20 per hour. She continues in that position and makes $7.97 per hour.
Huber filed suit under ADA, arguing that the router position was a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgement, stating that they have a non-discriminatory policy of hiring the most qualified individual and that they were not required to assign Huber to the router position. The position was filled with a non-disable applicant with better qualifications.
“The ADA was enacted in 1990 in order to meet what Congress termed a "compelling need" for a "clear and comprehensive national mandate" to prevent discrimination against the disabled. In furtherance of this end, the ADA prohibits discrimination against the disabled "in major areas of public life" including
…show more content…
In this case someone will always believe that they were not treated fairly or that the law was not applied fairly. Also, the fact that Wal-Mart is a huge corporation with powerful legal advisors will always be mentioned as a contributing factor for the ruling. However, we also need to consider the other side of the story, the qualified and good candidates that have been ruled out because small companies are afraid to violate the ADA law or any of the details of its scope. It is a “slippery slope” and unfortunately someone will always consider themselves discriminated in some
Cynthia Adae was taken to Clinton Memorial Hospital on June 28, 2006. She was taken to the hospital with back and chest pain. A doctor concluded that she was at high risk for acute coronary syndrome. She was transferred to the Clinton Memorial hospital emergency room. She reported to have pain for two or three weeks and that the pain started in her back or her chest. The pain sometimes increased with heavy breathing and sometimes radiated down her left arm. Cynthia said she had a high fever of 103 to 104 degrees. When she was in the emergency room her temperature was 99.3, she had a heart rate of 140, but her blood
According to the Pam Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. case, one reads that Pam Huber was switched from her current job, as a dry grocery order filler due to the fact that she injured herself at work and therefore was unable to fulfill her requirements. Due to this dilemma at work, Pam Huber was classified under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and was “sought, as a reasonable accommodation, reassignment to a router position” (Morgan, p.413), which Wal-Mart believes fits the working criteria’s of a disabled person registered under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. This position that one reads about that Pam Huber was given by Wal-Mart, meets Pam Huber’s work abilities due to her disability registered under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. One reads in this case also, that Wal-Mart- was fair in the fact that they did not automatically and simply tell Pam Huber to step down from her current position but to however get reevaluated against people that where not disabled and capable of doing the job. I believe that Wal-Mart was absolutely fair in wanting to reevaluate Pam Huber due to her disabilities...
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Susan Kellar contends that she is entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act for work performed prior to the official start of her work shift. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, Summit Seating, because it found that Kellar's pre-shift activities were “preliminary,” that any work Kellar performed before her shift was “de minimis,” and that Summit did not know that Kellar was engaging in pre-shift work. While we disagree with the district court's conclusions regarding the “preliminary”
Hamblett, M. (2004, August 26). 2nd Circuit: Impact of Employer Acts Grounds for Suit: Court rules on disparate impact theory of recovery. New York Law Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180422885
Maria DeSimone, 40 years old; wife and mother of two children of Palm Bay, Florida, was refused employment at the establishment in which she applied to. The circumstances surrounding the case were as follows. Ms. DeSimone possessed two years of previous restaurant experience, she applied for a position at Texas Roadhouse of Palm Bay to the manager of the facility. When she never heard back from the manager (who said he would get back to her); she happened to be discussing the situation with a friend; the friend told her that Texas Roadhouse had just hired her 19-year-old daughter to the position in which she had just applied for. Previously when she had not heard back from the manager about the position, he told her that “they weren’t hiring at this time” (Lee and Hymowitz,
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
Any company with 15 or more employees must be in full compliance with the ADA. The ADA, "prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies, and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment" (U.S. EEOC, 2007). This includes applicants for employment and existing employees.
The ADA prohibits employer discrimination against qualified individuals with a disability in regard to application procedures, hiring and firing, promotions, pay, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment (Hernandez, 2001). This applies to the entire range of employer-employee relationships, including testing, work assignments, discipline, leave, benefits, and lay-offs. In addition, the ADA prohibits retaliation against individuals w...
"The Americans With Disabilities Act is one of the most significant laws in American History. The preamble to the law states that it covers 43,000,000 Americans."(Frierson, p.3) Before the Americans With Disabilities Act(A.D.A.) was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled. With no other reason other than the persons physical disability were they turned away or released from a job. The Americans With Disabilities Act prevented this type of discrimination by establishing rules and regulations designed to protect persons with physical disabilities. With a workforce made up of 43,000,000 people, it is impossible to ignore the impact of these people. The Americans With Disabilities Act not only opened the door for millions of Americans to get back into the workplace, it is paving the road for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs and creating jobs designed for a disabled society.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group, “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against
It reinstated the ability of workers, in all occupations, to seek to vindication against pay discrimination. In summary, individuals have 180 days to sue from the last discriminatory paycheck received. This law is designed to protect workers from employment discrimination practices(Mathis and Jackson, 2011). Additionally, it empowers individuals who believe they have been victims of worksite discrimination a greater amount of time to seek justice. Usually, the victim can only collect backpay for the last two
If everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom that is set forth in the Declaration, disabled people should not be robbed of their rights. However, they are still devalued from conducting common tasks which puts them at the bottom of the priority list as an employee and even so as a friend. In search to solve this problem, according to “The Disabled” by Bender, D. on July 26, 1990, President G...
In the legal issue titled Employment discrimination, it describes a situation where abc corporation decides to respond to what it sees as a moral obligation to correct for past discrimination by adjusting pay differences among its employee. This raises a lot of ethical conflict with abc’s employees and its shareholders for numerous reasons. Employees were treated unfair, Abc company can no longer be trusted as a good work ethic company, they have a bad reputation for discrimination and there might be a likelihood the company will go out of business due to its actions.