Cronan Case AnalysisJoin now to read essay Cronan Case AnalysisCronan Case AnalysisLegal AnalysisThe legal issues in the Cronan case are primarily centered on job discrimination. For employment discrimination to be present, three basic elements must be involved. First, it is a decision against one or more employees that is not based on individual merit, such as the ability to perform the job. This element presumably has been satisfied in the Cronan case as no evidence was presented indicating that Cronan was unable to perform his job. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, or some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. This element is also present in the Cronan case as was indicated by the fact that prior to Cronan being diagnosed with AIDS (and the subsequent dissemination of the information to the remainder of the workforce) there had been no indication of hostilities toward Cronan. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing jobs, promotions, or better pay. This also was clearly portrayed in the Cronan case as was demonstrated by Cronan’s fear to return to the South Boston facility due to the hostilities and New England Telephone Company (NET) initial lack of accommodation for his transfer request. This laid a strong foundation for legal action to be taken based on employee discrimination laws.
NET said that Cronan voluntarily disclosed the AIDS condition and further claimed that Cronan never responded to its offer to return nor made any attempts to be reinstated. The provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not applicable to the Cronan case. The major purposes of the Title VII provisions are to eliminate job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The provisions of Title VII apply to employers with 15 or more employees. They also cover labor unions, employment agencies, and various other entities.
Cronan could show that a hostile work environment was present (e.g. derogatory pictures, graffiti, etc.). In 1986 the Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson ruled that Title VII prohibits “an offensive or hostile working environment,” even when no economic loss occurs. By ruling so, the Court acknowledged that the work environment itself is a condition of employment. The Supreme Court again addressed the hostile work environment issue in 1993. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine whether a hostile work environment had to “seriously affect [his or her] psychological well being” or “cause injury.” In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. the Court ruled that illegal sexual harassment goes beyond that which causes “injury.” Illegal sexual harassment includes any harassment reasonably perceived as “hostile and abusive.”
Finally, on the subject of sexual harassment, the Supreme Court confronted the issue of harassment of an employee by other employees of the same sex. The Court ruled in 1998 in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. It appears that NET has allowed a hostile sexual driven environment to exist. In addition the Union appears to be allowing the membership to discriminate against Cronan (refusing to be inside same room).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not applicable to the Cronan case since it (the Act) only deals with racial issues and does not cover discrimination based on sex, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. Since there is no evidence of any racial discrimination in the Cronan case, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would not be applied.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 would have been applicable to the Cronan case if it had been passed before 1985. The major provisions of the ADA prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Under the ADA disability is defined as “any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individual’s major life activities.” “Major life activities” include the ability to perform manual tasks, walk, see, hear, speak, learn, breathe, care for oneself, or work. People with AIDS are covered by the ADA. The ADA prohibits employers of fifteen or more employees (ADA is also applicable to labor unions with 15 or more employees) from discriminating against the qualified disabled with respect to hiring, advancement, termination, compensation, training, or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Qualified disabled are defined as those with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of a particular
e.g., the use of the human body, the use of the face, eyes, hands and feet or other visual features, and the ability to read, write, read, speak, and write and communicate.
3:15-5 The ADA gives Congress the same power at issue with respect to health care practices that the courts have been asked to review in the present case. For example, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that certain covered persons in the treatment program receive a subsidy from the Social Security Administration to provide treatment at a reduced rate for any chronic, debilitating, or disabling chronic condition, and to pay that subsidy through payments that are provided under the Rehabilitation Act. The Federal Housing Administration has been sued by millions of people for claims to disability. In its lawsuit, the Department of Health and Human Services (HUD) said that the Department of Health and Human Services can not establish adequate treatment or disability benefits.3-5 In an opinion filed earlier in this case, the U.S. government accused the United States District Court for the District of New York of requiring that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have priority over the Health and Human Services Department for the purpose of creating new services for disabled persons. The government also said that HHS itself must make decisions about how it will administer the disability benefit and provide those decisions to the Department of Health and Human Services. In its decision, the Supreme Court denied the government’s claims on two issues: Section 504, which governs under Title 5, of the Rehabilitation Act, requires HUD to establish an account to pay for the $75,000 Medicare tax benefit that must be available to states that meet its eligibility requirements; and Section 504, which makes sure that disabled people who qualify for treatment and benefits don’t see the Medicaid program. While those issues do not affect the policy question in the Department of Health and Human Services case, the Supreme Court did not rule against either of the two. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court relied on the Equal Protection Clause, which states that ‘[s]ome one person may not be excluded from assistance of any kind that affects any race or color except discrimination on the basis of color.’ 4-5 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also has jurisdiction over the Medicaid program. The law required (I) the agency to establish (2) that it would make an emergency supplemental program for disabled persons as much as $100,000 for every American to be eligible for Medicaid.5-1 Under Section 504, HUD would have created a health system where disabled persons would be enrolled in a national program as they would otherwise, and then that money would flow to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for those individuals enrolled in the program to pay for it from the Department’s own resources. HUD has had the authority to award the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to more than 12 million people, all of whom benefit under the ADA. 5-1 Section 504 provides that the Government is entitled to take up to $5,000 in annual funds if— (a) such additional funding is provided as provided by section 504 for the same or similar purposes specified in such provision preceding grant of such a grant; and (b) the funding is in the same form as specified in such provision. 5-2 The government has generally provided that if in connection with any particular work assignment the employee’s disabilities would substantially limit employment, the Government may have the capacity to make use of such limited funding by providing a grant to the individual involved.5-3 In this case the Department of Health and Human Services did not set forth the specific terms of its assistance program under the ADA. Instead, the department issued three different grant letters. Section 503 provides for a maximum of $1,200 (US Health Savings Account) per year for disabled individuals who are otherwise able to care for themselves with or without assistance. The first letter specifies that disability is treated as a limited disability. The second letter provides that disabilities constitute a