Evaluation Of Employee 5493's Case

Evaluation of Employee 5493's case

Employee 5493 has been an employee of company A, which employs over 75 other employees, for two years. During this time employee 5493 had a pregnant spouse who gave birth prematurely. At such time employee 5493 requested to be given an 11 week leave so as he could be with his spouse. After such time employee 5493 returned to work and has requested for his 11 weeks of withheld salary to be paid to him. This request was denied.

According to the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 an employee is to be restored to his original job, or an equivalent job. This job must have equal pay, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment as his previous job. Employee 5493 was allowed to return to his previous job at his previous rate of pay after he returned from his 11 week leave. This thus satisfies the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993.

It is also further stated by the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 that an employee is allowed up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for various reasons which one of them is the birth of a child into the family. In this case employee 5493 was granted 11 weeks of leave, but as the act states the employee is allowed up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave.

After reviewing all the above information the decision to deny employee 5493 his 11 weeks of withheld pay was well within the rights of the company. This decision was made due to how the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 only grants an employee up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. The act does not require an employer to pay the employee for the time they volunteer to leave. The other conditions of the act were carried forth as required by such law.

Evaluation of Employee 9871's case

Employee 9781 has been with the company for 42 years and is 68 years old. During our regular annual reviews employee 9781 was noted as doing "above average" work in the department. Employee 9781 around such time had put in a request for a promotion that was available. This promotion was denied to employee 9781.

According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 an employee of the age of 40 and above shall not be discriminated against in regards to hiring, promotion, wages, training opportunities, assignments, benefits or layoffs. This act applies to companies that hire 20 employees or more. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 does state a few exceptions to this rule that may apply to this situation.

The exceptions to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 would be in jobs where an age limit may be specified and shown to be an important qualification necessary to the normal operation of the specific business. Examples of this would be a young adult hired to play a young character in a play. Another example would be hiring for positions that involve the interest of the public safety such as pilots or bus drivers. This law also does not apply to workers that are employed by the state and top-level corporate executives.

Upon further review of employee 9781's case it has come to our decision that a potential violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 has occurred in this situation. The reason a violation has occurred is due to the fact that employee 9781 has been stated to be performing "above average" work in his department regardless of his age and was denied a promotion. This very same promotion was instead given to another employee who is 36 years younger than employee 9781 and his evaluation of his work in his department is rated as only