| | |Court Case Influential to | | | | |Description and Requirement of Law |Establishment of Law |Importance of Law |Workplace Application | |Employment Law | | | | | | |prohibited discrimination on the basis|Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) |No single piece of legislation in the |Affirmative Action Plans | |Civil Rights Act of 1964 |of race, |Washington |1960s had a greater effect on reducing| | | |sex, and national origin.
|v. Davis (1967) |employment discrimination | | | |granted of enforcement powers to the |Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) |The EEOC could effectively prohibit |Affirmative Action Plans | |Equal Employment Opportunity Act |Equal Employment | |all | | | |Opportunity Commission (EEOC) | |forms of employment discrimination | | | | | |based on race, religion, color, sex, | | | | | |or national | | | | | |origin.
| | | |The Equal Pay Act of 1963 mandates |Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970), |The Equal Pay Act was designed to |Salaries | |Equal Pay Act |that organizations compensate men |U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third |lessen the pay gap between male and |should be established based on skill, | | |and women doing the same job in the |Circuit |female |responsibility, effort, and working | | |organization with the same rate of | |pay rates. |conditions | | |pay. | | | | | |prohibited the widespread practice of |Odriozola v. Superior Cosmetic |Eliminates the practice of laying off |
Organizations with 20 or more | |Age Discrimination in Employment Act |requiring |Distributors Corp. , 116 D.P.R. 485 |senior employees and hire recent |employees, state and | |of 1967 |workers to retire at age 65. It gave |(1985). |college graduates to be paid less. |local governments, employment | | |protected-group status to individuals |Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts | |agencies, and labor organizations are | | |between the ages of 40 and 65. |(1984) | |covered by | | | | | |the ADEA. | | |The Americans with Disabilities |Aline v. Nassau County |Companies are |Extends EEO coverage to include | |Americans with Disabilities Act of |
Act of 1990 (ADA) extends employment | |further required to make reasonable |most forms of disability, requires | |1990 |protection to most forms of | |accommodations to provide a qualified |employers to make reasonable | | |disability status, including those | |individual |accommodations, | | |afflicted with AIDS. | |access to the job.
A company may also |and eliminates post– | | | | |be required to provide necessary |job-offer medical exams. | | | | |technology so that an individual can | | | | | |do his or her job. | | | |The Civil Rights Act of 1991 prohibits|Connecticut v. Teal (1984) |Employment discrimination law |The 4/5th rule, A rough indicator of | |Civil Rights Act of 1991 |discrimination on the basis of race |Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) |that nullified selected Supreme |discrimination, | | |and |McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green |Court decisions.
Reinstated burden |this rule requires that the number | | |prohibits racial harassment on the |1973 |of proof by the employer, and |of minority members a company | | |job; returns the burden of proof that | |allowed for punitive and compensatory |hires must equal at least 80 percent | | |discrimination | |damage through jury trials. |of the majority members in the | | |did not occur back to the employer; | | |population hired. | | |reinforces the illegality of employers| | | | | |who make hiring, firing, or promoting | | | | | |decisions on the basis of race, | | | | | |ethnicity, | | | | | |sex, or religion; and permits women | | | | | |and religious minorities to seek | | | | | |punitive damages | | | | | |in intentional discriminatory claims. | | | | | |The Family and Medical Leave | |
During this period of unpaid leave, |If, however, | |Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of|Act of 1993 (FMLA) provides employees | |employees retain their |an organization can show that it will | |1993 |in organizations23 employing 50 or | |employer-offered |suffer significant economic damage by | | |more | |health insurance coverage, Nearly 80 |having a “key” employee out on FMLA | | |workers within a 75-mile radius of the| |percent of all U.S. workers |leave, the organization may deny the | | |organization the opportunity to take | |are covered under FMLA. |leave. A key employee is generally a | | |up | | |salaried employee among the top 10 | | |to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a | | |percent | | |12-month period for family matters | | |of wage earners in the organization. | | |
This act, applicable to only federal |R.R. v. Department of the Army, 482 F.|Even though this act applies solely to|An employee can’t simply | |Privacy Act of 1974 |government |Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1980). |federal workers, it provided impetus |demand to immediately see his or her | | |agencies, requires that an employee’s | |for |file; there is typically a 24-hour | | |personnel file be open for inspection.| |state legislatures to pass similar |turnaround | | |
This means that employees are | |laws governing employees of state- and|time. Whether the employee can review | | |permitted to review their files | |private sector |the file alone or only in the presence| | |periodically | |enterprises |of an HRM representative is up to each| | |to ensure that the information | | |organization. Although an individual | | |contained within is accurate | | |may take notes about the file’s | | | | | |contents, copying the file often is | | | | | |not | | | | | |permitted. | | |
The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 | |Under the act, government agencies, |The enterprise must establish its | |Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 |was passed to help keep the problem of| |federal contractors, and those |drug-free work environment policy and | | |substance abuse from entering the | |receiving federal funds ($25,000 or |disseminate | | |workplace. | |more) are |it to its employees.
This policy must | | | | |required to actively pursue a |spell out employee expectations in | | | | |drug-free environment. In addition, |terms | | | | |the act requires |of being substance free and infraction| | | | |employees who hold certain jobs in |penalties. In addition, the | | | | |companies regulated by the Department |organization must | | | | |of |provide substance-abuse awareness | | | | |Transportation (DOT) and the Nuclear |programs to its employees. | | | | |Regulatory Commission to be subjected | | | | | |to | | | | | |drug tests. | | | |Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 |968 F.2d 877: Howard E. Saari, |The act was passed because polygraphs |
The Employee Polygraph | |Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 |prohibits employers in the private |Plaintiff-appellee, v. Smith Barney, |were used inappropriately. |Protection Act did not eliminate their| | |sector from using polygraph tests in |Harris Upham & Co., Inc., |In general, polygraph tests have been |use in organizations altogether.
The | | |all |Defendant-appellant |found to have little job-related |law | | |employment decisions | |value, which makes their effectiveness|permits their use, for example, when | | | | |questionable |theft occurs in the organization, but | | | | | |this process | | | | | |is regulated, too. The employee has | | | | | |the right to refuse to take a | | | | | |polygraph test without fear of | | | | | |retaliation from the employer | | |Specifies for employers notification |Platt v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. (D.N.J.
|Should |Sometimes called the Plant Closing | |Worker Adjustment and Retraining |requirements when closing down a |2010). |a company fail to provide this advance|Bill, places specific requirements | |Notification Act (WARN) of 1988 |plant or laying off large numbers of | |notice, the penalty is to pay |on employers considering significant | | |workers. | |employees a |changes in staffing levels. Under | | | | |sum of money equal to salary and |WARN, an | | | | |benefits for each day notification was|organization employing 100 or more | | | | |not given |individuals must notify workers 60 | | | | |(up to 60 days). |days in | | | | | |advance if it is going to close its | | | | | |facility or lay off 50 or more | | | | | |individuals. |