Question

• Fully answer the questions associated with each case below and upload your completed document in the dropbox below.There are 6 cases, with 10 questions spread among them. Each question is worth 10 points for a total of 100 points.

  Secnario: You are a paralegal with the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. Your boss attorney, Sharon Ripley, has asked you do answer some questions about some HR legal issues that have arisen.

  Case 1
  
  The first case involves Joe Stromboli. Joe is a delivery driver for Weyland, and after an accident, Joe became 100% deaf in both ears. The doctors were unable to restore any of Joe’s hearing. Joe’s manager, Stephanie, believes that communication with employees and the recipients of the deliveries is an essential function of the job. Additionally, Joe needs to be able to participate in the team meetings. Joe’s manager was unsure whether to proceed, so she referred the case to the Weyland-Wutani medical staff. The medical employee took one look at Joe and said no accommodation is possible. When asked why, the doctor said “Joe’s deaf.” Joe was terminated, and he has now filed a suit for failure to reasonably accommodate.

  The job description for a Weyland-Yutani delivery driver states that the employee must be able to maintain a Commercial driver’s license. Additionally, delivery drivers are expected to take orders from various employees. This is ordinarily done via hand radio. However, Joe has a cell phone capable of receiving text messages and emails that could allow him to take orders. Furthermore, Joe has offered to carry a pen and paper around so that communication could also be done this way. Joe’s deafness had no effect on maintaining his CDL, and the firm expects it would make these accommodations fairly cheaply.

  1. Can Joe establish a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate disability? Be sure to list the elements of the claim and to show how you reached your conclusion.
  2. What mistakes—if any—were made? How can these be corrected in the future?

  
  
  Case 2
  
  The second case involves Johnson. Johnson is a floor supervisor in the plant. 55% of the time he is engaged with ordinary production. However, 45% of the time he is engaged with supervising his zone, preparing schedules, and dealing with personnel disputes. If there is a problem, he is responsible for mobilizing his zone to resolve equitable. He also spends times meeting with his superiors in order to provide reports on efficiency of employees and on any other problems that have arisen. For this, he receives 10% more money than his subordinates. He had earlier been classified as an FSLA exempt employee. Now, he is challenging that designation. Although Weyland has a strict no-overtime policy, Johnson has been showing up to work early to drink a cup of coffee, smoke a cigarette, make sure schedules are prepared, doors are unlocked, and preparing workstations for the day ahead. He typically arrives an hour early to perform these tasks. Weyland knew that Johnson was coming in early, and working 45 hours a week.

  1. Is Johnson an exempt employee? Be sure to list and discuss the applicable legal standards as well as some of the factors the court will consider.
  2. Was Johnson’s pre-shift work preliminary?
  3. Was Johnson’s work de minimis?
  4. Does Weyland’s policy against overtime mean they don’t have to pay?

  
  
  Case 3
  
  Weyland wishes to modify their pension plan. The current plan allows employees to either receive $500 a month or $100,000 upfront upon retirement. Both plans also offer a annual ticket to the company retreat cruise. Seeking to incentives people to accept $500 a month, Weyland wishes to tie the ticket to employees receiving $500 a month only to apply retroactively to $100,000 lump sum plan.

  1. Does this violate ERISA? Why or why not?

  
  Case 4

  
  Weyland became aware that a union organizing campaign was underway in one of its plants. A union supporter was called in to a meeting with plant managers. At the end of the meeting, when the employee asked what he was supposed to do if others wanted to talk with him about unionizing, he was told “[Y]ou’re to just work and not talk about the Union.” After union supporters posted material on company bulletin boards, the flyers were repeatedly taken down. The company then issued a policy requiring all employees to obtain approval before placing any material on the boards. Subsequently, the company’s practice was to refuse to post material of any kind from employees.

  A few months later, several off-duty employees attempted to distribute prounion flyers in the company parking lot but were stopped by company officials. They were warned that they were in violation of company policy. Around the same time, employees passed out union buttons in the plant and left some of them near a time clock for other employees to pick up.

  When company officials learned of this activity, they quickly called a meeting and warned one union advocate that “I don’t want to catch you passing [buttons] out, Okay, I don’t want to see them laying around. You can pass them out when you’re outside, on your own time, but when you’re here working, you, you, need to be working.” The officials said that this action was taken to keep the plant free of clutter and trash.

  1. Has Weyland engaged in unfair labor practices in its response to the union organizing activity?

  
  Case 5
  
  At the end of her shift, a 19 year old salesperson at Weyland was questioned by two store security officers. She was questioned in a small room for three hours. One of the security officers sat behind her on the right side where she could not see him (she was blind in the right eye). She was asked to sign a document stating that she was voluntarily waiving her “rights,” including the right to remain silent. When she asked for further explanation of the document before she signed it, she was told that it “doesn’t mean anything” unless you’ve “done something wrong.” A security officer threatened to call the police and have her jailed unless she signed a confession. She was told that the interrogation could last all night and that if she signed a confession she could probably keep her job. Under these circumstances she signed. She was fired two days later. The employee claims that she is agitated and finding it increasingly difficult to sleep.

  1. Does the sales person have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

  
  Case 6
  
  A female crane operator was told it was Weyland policy that crane operators urinate over the side of their cranes rather than stop work to take bathroom breaks. Management justified the policy by saying that there was a shortage of staff and that it was necessary for the cranes to operate continuously in that area of the plant. Shifts for crane operators were typically twelve hours. There was evidence that the same policy was applied to male crane operators and that they routinely urinated over the side or back of their cranes in lieu of bathroom breaks.

  1. Does the female crane operator have a valid sex discrimination claim under disparate impact? What about disparate treatment?

All answers must be original, meaning they haven't previously been posted on Chegg. Thank You!

Answer 1

Case - 1

1.

In this case, Joe can definitely claim for failure to reasonably accommodate disability. It is clearlyseen that employer did not make a good faith while assisting Joe for accommodation. Joe is facing aadverse employment decision which indicates discrimination from employers side. Joe should beaccommodated in accordance with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

2.

The mistakes made in this case are, termination of joe, not providing the proper accommodation to the employee. It is unlawful to discriminate an employee due to his disability and company should take care this in future

Case - 2

1.

In accordance with the Fair Labor Standard Act, Johnson is an exempt employee. This act states that when an employee works more than 40 hours a week that they should be given one-and-a-half times their regular rate of payment. In this case, Johnson works 45 hours a week and therefore, he is eligible to be an exempt employee. In order to avoid legal consequences, the employer should be making sure that they are adhering to federal and state wage and hour laws.

2.

Pre-shift work is considered to be preliminaryand there for Johnson’s pre-work activities are considered to be preliminary. Johnson wascompensable under the Fair Labor Standard Act because Weyland has knowledge of Johnson’s pre-shift work taking place.

3.

According to Portal-to-Portal Act, 1947, if employer does not have an idea that employee isworking in pre-shift then it considered as de minimis. Johnson’s work was not concluded as deminimis because Weyland knew that Johnson was coming in early, and working 45 hours a week.That means employer have an idea that employee is working early.

4.

No, employer’s policy against overtime does not mean that they are free from overtime pay. If Weyland do so, it considered as wage theft which is illegal.

Case - 3

This does violate the ERISA. This is because by changing the way they are allowing the tickets, they are improperly denying benefits to current or former employees. Just because they have a no overtime policy, that does not mean that they do not have pay. If it a regular hourly employee who is staying over because they have no choice, the company still has to pay them for that. Salary pay does not get overtime because that pays them a set amount regardless of hours worked.

Alternative View - The Employee Retirement Income Security Act potentially violated in this case becauseaccording to the act the employer have to offer a unique as well as qualifying program to employees in the state. In all the states the law prevented from the uniform administration ofbenefit program.

Case - 4

In this case it looks that Weyland has engaged in unfair labor practices, their response to unionorganizing activity is unlawful. According to the law employees have right of unionization toadvance their interests as employees. Employer cannot interfere or restrain in employees unionactivity. It is unlawful if employers threatens or interrogate employees. Weyland has in fact engaged in unfair labor practices. The law states that employees have the right to unionize as a way to advance their interests as employees. The way they handled this situation was wrong. Not only did they ban anyone from posting on the company bulletin board, they told them they could not hand out anything on the company grounds at all. Not even in the parking lot. This violated the rights of the employees. Company’s actions like stopping employees from union and creating policy which refuseemployees rights to post material on boards, violates National Labor Relations Act.

Case - 5

She does have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She was young. They questioned her for 3 hours at the end of her shift in a small room with two security guards. The fact that one sat behind her on the side she is blind is enough to cause distress. They also threatened her if she did not sign a confession that they would call the cops and have her sent to jail. On top of that they told her if she didn’t that the interrogation could last all night and that by signing she could probably keep her job. She was pressured into signing something she did not want to and still got fired anyway.

Case - 6

She definitely has a valid sex discrimination claim. First of all you cannot have someone working a regular shift, especially we hours, and tell them they are not allowed to take a bathroom break. Secondly, it is pretty simple for a male to urinate over the side of the crane but unfortunately for women it definitely is not that easy. Not only that, women haveother personal issues that may need to be taken care of that require a bathroom. To think awoman can urinate over the side of a crane and have no bathroom breaks like a make is sexdiscrimination without a doubt.

*****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please*****