In the same case, other applicants complained of the company wanting to avoid applying the Family and Medical Leave Act enacted in 1993 in response to the frequent cases of employees being fired because of taking time off to attend to their family and personal problems particularly those ones that were related to health and child birth or adoption.
This act entitles employees to a leave that is a unpaid of twelve workweeks for either the care of family with a health problem that is serious, the employee has health problems that deter them from performing their job tasks, the birth of a child to the employee or any other personal or family reason that is valid (Guerin, 2007). The Act protects the employees from being denied the leave or fired when they take the leave, it also ensures that the employee retains their job position on return from the leave and is not discriminated against.
Applicants and employees who felt that they were being rejected because of their age filed suits against the company for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act enacted in 1967 to protect individuals over the age of forty years from being discriminated against when employment, promotion and other job related decisions were being made. This Act was a response to a situation in which individuals in this group stayed jobless after being dismissed from one job or staying for long without employment which resulted to deterioration in their morale and skills (Gold, 2001).
In most cases employees who have conflicts and grievances and who understand their rights and have the means usually file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission which investigates and ensures the complainant is compensated and justice done in the event they were truly discriminated against. The EEOC ensures that employees comply with the legislations that prohibit discrimination of any form.
The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are the two laws that were effective in resolving the issues that concerned women and older individuals from working at Ford Service Dealership. The other two laws were not effective as the employer maintained that the tasks involved in the job were dangerous for pregnant women and that it was willing to employ them in one of its other departments but not service dealership.
Women and individuals over the age of forty years who had the experience and skills were employed at the service dealership and those who lost their jobs based on these factors compensated. The employer was obliged to compensate any of the employees who had been fired, demoted or discriminated in any way because of their age, sex or pregnancy. The employer was required to reemploy any of those who had been forced to leave work because of these reasons and was willing to continue working for the company.
The company had to stop using these discriminative mechanisms in its employment and recruitment strategies to avoid getting in more problems with the law or even litigation.
Loevy, R (1997). The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Gold, M. E. (2001). An Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination Second edn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Guerin, L D. (2007). The Essential Guide to Family and Medical Leave. Berkeley, CA: Nolo. 2007.