100%(10)10 out of 10 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 8 pages.
1Running Head: EMPLOYMENT ISSUES REPORTIntroductionThe legal and ethical considerations for New Brand Design and the Equal Employment Opportunity issues surrounding Elena, Viktor, Michael, and Beth require holistic analysis againststanding legal statues and ethical frameworks in order to determine the best courses of action in each case. This analysis seeks to identify, characterize, and nominate courses of action for New Brand Design and Colossal Corporation. Legal AnalysisApplicable Laws within the United StatesAll employees that work in the United States or territories are protected by Equal Employment Opportunity laws. New Brand Design is incorporated in the United States and is subject to adherence to U.S. federal employment laws. If Elena, Viktor, Michael, and Beth worked within the United States, they would be protected under various aspects of Equal Employment Opportunity law (UMUC, 2019, Extraterritorial Reach of Laws):In the case of Elena and Viktor, they are protected under various aspects of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This includes protection against the discrimination in compensationand benefits on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, and disability. They are also protected against retaliation from their employer for opposing unlawful discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,1964). Elena and Viktor would also be operating within the context of the Fair Labor and Standards Act (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016) which protect employees from being paid unfairor unduly low wages. An amendment to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 explicitly states that
2EMPLOYMENT ISSUES REPORTemployees are required to be compensated equally in jobs of equal skill, effort, and responsibilityperformed under similar working conditions (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,1963). In Serafini, Beth is currently being refused an employment, likely due to the fact that she is a woman seeking work in Serafini. Michael is being refused employment opportunities on the basis of his age. In the United States, both Michael and Beth would be protected from this treatment under various statues. Michael and Beth are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1964). Specifically, they are protected against discriminatory employment decisions—including sex and age—related to recruitment, hiring and assignment. If Michael and Beth were experiencing these issues within the United States, she would have the right to file a charge against her employer for discrimination. She must demonstrate one of the following three actions (UMUC, 2019, Employment Discrimination):Disparate treatment: Direct discriminatory treatment of an employee by the employer. The employer intentionally discriminated against Beth on the basis of sex and Michael on the basis of age and that their demographic factors were a substantial motivating factor for the employer’s action. Disparate impact: