HRM 300 Employment Laws Chart

Outlaws discrimination and segregation in public establishments, schools, and federally funded programs. Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. This also established the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Lewis v. City of Chicago

African American firefighters filed a discrimination suit that tests were biased against blacks. Protects applicants, and employees against hiring or firing because of race, color, religion, gender, or nationality from being disregarded as a candidate for employment, promotion, classification, training,…etc. Prohibits employers from discrimination against prospective and current employees on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or nationality

Equal Employment Opportunity Act

Equal Pay Act

Requires employers to give men and women equal pay for equal work Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974) Protects both men and women from wage discrimination based on sex That workers performing equal work be paid at the same pay rate, not that workers receive the same amount of pay.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Addressed the difficulties older employees face in the workplace, including mandatory retirements, and discrimination in hiring those 40 and over. Amended in 1990 when the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act was passed detailing provisions and benefits for those over 40 years of age. Reid v. Google (2010)

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009) Smith v. City of Jackson (2005) For employers with 20 + employees working each calendar working day. Prohibits any discrimination against any applicant or employees 40 and older for hiring, firing, benefits, compensation, promotions, layoffs,…etc No matter the age all applicants or employees will be treated equally and the employer is not allowed to retaliate against a person who claims discrimination against them.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Protects those qualified with disabilities from discrimination in several contexts like employment, government services, public accommodations and telecommunications Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams

A person with a disability who is qualified is as eligible for the position as a healthy normal individual. Once they are hired if special accommodations are needed the employer needs to make those arrangements as long as they are reasonable. That someone with a disability that is qualified is able to have the position and receive reasonable accommodations to enable this individual to perform to the best of his ability. If there is an accusation there is to be no retaliation to the employee.

Civil Rights Act of 1991

Added new provisions to the 1964 overturning some and adding new to where an individual can receive punitive and compensatory damages. Also made it illegal for employers to have applicants take an aptitude test, if they could not prove that the test was job related. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989)

Modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided for the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award. Employer liability and burden of proof. Employers also are not allowed to intimidate or retaliate any employee who initiates a claim.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993

Employees may take FMLA leave for a qualifying exigency relating to a family member’s covered active duty. This leave counts toward the employees 12-wk. total entitlement for all types of FMLA leave. Employees may take up to 26 weeks of leave in a single 12-month period to care for certain family members who are covered service members. If employees use this leave and regular FMLA leave during the year, they are entitled only to 26 wks. Of leave total, and no more than 12 of those weeks may be used for regular FMLA leave with special rules for public and private school employees.

Faragher-Ellerth Defense Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)

Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998) This leave assists those who have an illness or caregivers of an ill family member; such as a parent with cancer and is in hospice. This allows an employee the peace of mind that they will have their position when they come back to work so this does not have to add to the stress of an already stressful situation. Requires that employers allow employees to take time off caregiving, medical, and family needs. Also allows medical leave for care of a new child, recuperate or to care for a family member’s illness.

Privacy Act of 1974

Protects records that can be retrieved by personal identifiers such as a name, social security number, or other identifying number or symbol. An individual is entitled to access to his or her records and to request correction of these records if applicable. Prohibits disclosure of these records without the written consent of the individual(s) to whom the records pertain unless one of the twelve disclosure exceptions enumerated in the Act applies.

Doe v. Chao Protects the employee’s right to privacy and holds the employer liable if personal information is divulged without permission. HR may reveal any personal records or say anything regarding personal records of any employees or by any means of complications. Written employment requests may only answer employment verifications can only supply start date, end date if there is one, no other data is allowed. This information is also allowed when written permission is signed from the applicant or employee.

Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988

Federal contractors and all Federal grantees to agree that they will provide drug-free workplaces as a precondition of receiving a contract or grant from a Federal agency. Although all covered contractors and grantees must maintain a drug-free workplace, the specific components necessary to meet the requirements of the Act vary based on whether the contractor or grantee is an individual or an organization. The requirements for organizations are more extensive, because organizations have to take comprehensive, programmatic steps to achieve a workplace free of drugs.

Treasury Employees v. Von Raab (1989) This lead to a safer environment for workers and helped with liability of employers for injuries, loss of revenue, and decrease in production. Publish and give a policy statement regarding workplace actions with drugs. Establish a drug-free awareness program. Notification of drug violations

Polygraph Protection Act of 1988

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions. Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act. In addition, employers are required to display the EPPA poster in the workplace for their employees.

Brad v. Driscoll (1987)

Jose A. Santiago v. Greyhound Lines The Employee Polygraph Protection Act prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests for either pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. Employers are generally prohibited from requiring or requesting any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test and from discharging, disciplining, or discriminating against an employee or prospective employee for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act. See that employees or job applicants give written permission for polygraph testing.

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) of 1988

This requires certain larger employers to give some advance notice of an impending layoff that will result in job loss for a specified number or percentage of employees. From Wikipedia.. Protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide sixty- (60) calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and masslayoffs of employees. In 2001, there were about 2,000 mass layoffs and plant closures which were subject to WARN advance notice requirements and which affected about 660,000 employees.[1] Employees entitled to notice under the WARN Act include managers and supervisors, hourly wage, and salaried workers.

The WARN Act requires that notice also be given to employees' representatives (i.e. a labor union), the local chief elected official (i.e. the mayor), and the state dislocated worker unit. The advance notice gives workers and their families transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other employment, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining programs that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market.

United Food Workers v. Brown group Inc.

HR department ensures that the business provides a public notice of cutbacks and layoffs public.