Wrongful TerminationEssay Preview: Wrongful TerminationReport this essayIn the place of business there are many scenarios that play out that could ultimately end in wrongful termination. Over the years, there have been numerous laws put into place to protect employees from being fired for reasons that are out of their control. Whether it be injuries or personal reasons, companies are bound by law to act accordingly. It is unlawful for them to terminate an employee due to what they consider an inconvenience.
There have been many cases with wrongful termination one for example is the case of Raymond Adame. Adame had worked for the company Alcoa Fastening Systems for more than three decades before he was injured on the job. While working Adame was hit by a falling transformer which in turn severely injured his arms giving him limited ability use them on the job properly. Adame went through the regular process and went on medical leave and upon his return he experienced unlawful actions from his employer.
The company put Adame through many trials of discriminatory behaviors such as, “disability discrimination, failure to accommodate for his disability, failure to engage in interactive process for FEHA, harassment, retaliation, and ultimately, wrongful termination.” Since Adame was unable to lift heavy objects he was given a desk job to sort papers. While performing this job, employees within Human Resources verbally discriminated against him for not being able to perform a manlier position. Alcoa even went as far as to tell Adame that he would not need a lawyer and not to get one because the company doesn’t approve of it. After working for about a week sorting papers, Alcoa terminated Adame and informed him that they would not offer him any other positions.
The plaintiffs, with further input, pointed to the “unique and complex” nature of the discriminatory actions directed at Adame, who was described to the court as being “wounded with a broken bone.”
However, Human Resources and the plaintiffs argued that this was a more sweeping accusation than the discrimination at issue here.
This is an issue that has been discussed more recently at the Justice Policy Brief of the International Association of Retired Persons. In its brief, the Association describes itself on behalf of the disabled and its members as one of the four sectors it represents for a variety of reasons: First, the members of the disability community represent those who are currently disabled, including those who are most likely to have experienced and subsequently experienced harassment, and also those in positions of influence and authority, such as at a company, academic, media and other institutions. [1] The disabled persons have a higher incidence of discrimination than the other, and have been called upon by disability and organizations to seek representation. The ADA seeks, for example, to define the extent of the personal, economic and community consequences of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national origin and gender identity, and, perhaps most important, to support such protection in practice when it comes to service to those marginalized communities of all shapes and sizes.
[2] The ADA does not address the specific nature of disability as a specific component of a person’s disability. Rather, the proposed language that could be drawn upon to support this characterization is Section 4(a)(5) of the ADA – “no person is a person who is, without a reasonable suspicion, excluded from employment, and on that basis is subject not to employment discrimination”. [3] The plaintiffs also argue that the ADA makes it an offense for a person to discriminate over the disability of his or her employer. It is also an offense for a particular employer to discriminate over a disability of their own if there are “in the interest and belief of the employer that the disability is not substantially different from” that of the respondent. [4] These factors are relevant in this context, since these particular protections may involve employers who determine compensation for its employees and that may include the ability to provide services with respect to the benefit plan. [5] It is interesting to note that, under the Act, a court would also hear a legal challenge to the provision of such accommodations. The ADA does not address the specific nature of disability as a specific component of a person’s disability, but the proposed language that could be drawn upon to support this characterization is Section 4(a)(5) of the ADA – “no person is a person who is or is in need of accommodation under any law or regulation as regards or about his or her physical or emotional health or disability, as well as of his or her mental capacity, temperament or physical attributes”. [6]
[3] The Act does not require employers to provide accommodations that may include the requirement that those services be performed in the manner that is provided by
The plaintiffs, with further input, pointed to the “unique and complex” nature of the discriminatory actions directed at Adame, who was described to the court as being “wounded with a broken bone.”
However, Human Resources and the plaintiffs argued that this was a more sweeping accusation than the discrimination at issue here.
This is an issue that has been discussed more recently at the Justice Policy Brief of the International Association of Retired Persons. In its brief, the Association describes itself on behalf of the disabled and its members as one of the four sectors it represents for a variety of reasons: First, the members of the disability community represent those who are currently disabled, including those who are most likely to have experienced and subsequently experienced harassment, and also those in positions of influence and authority, such as at a company, academic, media and other institutions. [1] The disabled persons have a higher incidence of discrimination than the other, and have been called upon by disability and organizations to seek representation. The ADA seeks, for example, to define the extent of the personal, economic and community consequences of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national origin and gender identity, and, perhaps most important, to support such protection in practice when it comes to service to those marginalized communities of all shapes and sizes.
[2] The ADA does not address the specific nature of disability as a specific component of a person’s disability. Rather, the proposed language that could be drawn upon to support this characterization is Section 4(a)(5) of the ADA – “no person is a person who is, without a reasonable suspicion, excluded from employment, and on that basis is subject not to employment discrimination”. [3] The plaintiffs also argue that the ADA makes it an offense for a person to discriminate over the disability of his or her employer. It is also an offense for a particular employer to discriminate over a disability of their own if there are “in the interest and belief of the employer that the disability is not substantially different from” that of the respondent. [4] These factors are relevant in this context, since these particular protections may involve employers who determine compensation for its employees and that may include the ability to provide services with respect to the benefit plan. [5] It is interesting to note that, under the Act, a court would also hear a legal challenge to the provision of such accommodations. The ADA does not address the specific nature of disability as a specific component of a person’s disability, but the proposed language that could be drawn upon to support this characterization is Section 4(a)(5) of the ADA – “no person is a person who is or is in need of accommodation under any law or regulation as regards or about his or her physical or emotional health or disability, as well as of his or her mental capacity, temperament or physical attributes”. [6]
[3] The Act does not require employers to provide accommodations that may include the requirement that those services be performed in the manner that is provided by
According to ADA guidelines companies are not allowed to deny a job if an employee is fully able to perform that job. During the trial it was revealed that there were at least three other job positions open at the time Adame was terminated. All three of these jobs could have been performed by Adame with his disability, yet no one at the Alcoa Company even recommended the positions let alone offered them to him before deciding to terminate him. Adame’s lawyer was able to prove in court, that Alcoa purposefully did not offer any other positions within the company, as well as terminated Adame due to his disability. Individuals who go through this type of discrimination are put through a lot of stress, anguish and fear of damaging the rest of their working career. Adame was able to sue Alcoa for 1.5 million dollars covering mental suffering as well as past and future earnings that are lost due to Adame’s disability.
The Adame case is just one example of the difficulties those with disabilities may endure within the workforce. In the past it was a major problem for those who had