Description
I need a 4 page case Analysis on the paragraph below. This is a Human Resource Management class I need this in. I will upload the direction for the Analysis . It must be in APA format . Please follow the direction please do not copy other people work. Must cited information do whatever in the information I'm going to upload. Follow direction
Discussion Case:
Franklin, a U.S. born individual of English ancestry, works for the China Lights restaurant, which is owned and operated by two U.S. citizens of Chinese ancestry. Franklin's coworkers Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang, also U.S. citizens of Chinese ancestry, are late for work virtually every day, but no action is taken against them for this, even though the owners are aware of Jin and Dongping's tardiness, and even though there is a stated workplace policy that an employee reporting to work late, more than once in a sixty day period will be dismissed. Franklin reports to work late twice, 55 days apart, and he is dismissed.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Find attached work, thank you. Please let me know if everything is ok. I will be happy to help with more assignments in the future.
Running head: DISCRIMINATION
1
Discrimination
Student’s Name
University Affiliation
Date
DISCRIMINATION
2
Employee discrimination cases are often subjects of great controversy from both the
employer and employee perspective. As a direct result, most employment discrimination cases
from the public and private companies end up in a court of law where they are contested under
multiple laws including civil rights laws, laws of tort, FMLA and ADA. It is essential to note that
such cases are dependent on the setting of the organization whether public or private and whether
there was a verbal agreement between the stakeholders that might alter the direction of justice.
Additionally, these cases could depend on precedents to shed light on the most probable
outcome. The paper is a precise analysis of Franklin versus China Light restaurant, shedding
light on the laws in effect while using precedents to determine the most probable judgment on
the case. Owing to this, it provides management tips advising China Light Restaurant on how to
deal with discrimination and thus prevent future incidents.
The defendant, China light restaurant, is a private organization and therefore the case will
be decided while giving reference to company policies then incorporating the necessary universal
laws and precedents to influence the judgment. From the onset, it is apparent that there is a stated
work policy that for the company that dictates that an employee reporting to work late more than
once in sixty days will be dismissed. From the defendant's perspective Franklin the plaintiff
violated workplace policy by reporting late twice in 55 days span. If an employee does not
qualify as disabled under the Americans Disability Act (ADA) and exhausts their Family and
Medical leave of the year (FMLA), and they still call in sick, you may need to discipline them
and even terminate them, unless your state laws provide additional restrictions (HG.org, 2016).
Notably, the FMLA act covers employees that have worked at least 1,250 hours in the past for
the company and this way they could acquire leave (HG.org, 2016). In this case, it is reasonable
to assume that Franklin has worked for the Chinese restaurant for more than 1,250 hours and is
DISCRIMINATION
3
subject to FMLA (HG.org, 2016). In spite of that, the company provides a clear policy that
lateness is not tolerated. Such a policy overwrites any references to FMLA by the plaintiff.
Likewise, it is also reasonable to assume that Franklin is not disabled and therefore the ADA act
does not apply in this case. According to the company policy, the employer under the law is right
to dismiss Franklin.
On the other hand, Franklin the plaintiff views the situation from a discriminate
perspective where his fellow employees of Asian origin do not get dismissed according to the
company policy even though they occasionally report late. According to the equality act of 2010,
a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice
which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's (Term, 2017). The
act applies when the comparison is to a person with whom B does not share characteristics
(Term, 2017). Additionally, section 39(2) emphasizes that an employer (A) must not
discriminate agai...