Employment Laws Chart: Comparison of Their Importance and Scope

Complete the chart below using information from the weekly readings and additional research if necessary.

Employment Law Description and Requirement of Law Court Case Influential to Establishment of Law Importance of Law Workplace Application
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007) A federal law that prohibited discrimination based on race. Organizations with 25 employees or more are bound by the law. Washington v. Davis (1967) The legislation affected discriminatory practices by employers, greatly reducing their numbers, and providing guidelines for the companies on the requirements for compliance to such law. Specifies compliance mechanisms for companies.
Equal Employment Opportunity Act
(DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007)
A series of amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, granting enforcement powers to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Organizations with 15 employees or more are bound by the law.
Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) The reduction of the minimum number of employees required for a company to be held accountable for discrimination. Promoted affirmative action. Evaluating the set of skills required and their relevancy for each job position in the company.
Equal Pay Act
(Brunner, 2007; DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007)
A legislation that requires that men and women are paid the same for the same work performed as their initial salaries. Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. (1970)
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974)
Lessened the gap between male and female pay rates. Serves as the guideline for initial pay salaries and protects employees from discrimination.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 “An act that prohibits arbitrary age discrimination, particularly among those over age 40” (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 429) Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell (1985) (ProCon, 2009) Sets an age group protected from discrimination at the workplace, through amendments, removing the upper limit at which employees are forced to retire. Identifying the practices that put the company at risk of litigation. Providing the framework to establish that age discrimination has occurred in the organization (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 64).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is An act that provides protection from discrimination to most forms of disability status. Excludes some psychiatric disabilities. Aline v. Nassau County (1987) (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 65) The act further promoted equality in employment through providing employment opportunities to people with disabilities, making them productive members of society. Enforces employers to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities to do a job.
Civil Rights Act of 1991 A discrimination law that restored some of the provisions lost through Supreme Court decisions, allowing punitive and compensatory damages to be received by employees through jury trials. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) The law restated the burden of proof on employers and led to the establishment of the Glass Ceiling commission that inspects the management practices in the company. In avoiding litigation, employers were obliged to takes steps to guard their employees against discriminatory practices.
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 An act that allows employees to take unpaid leave for family matters for up to 12 weeks. Applicable to organizations that have 50 or more employees and require employees to work at least 12 months for the employer (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 48). Ackerman v. Board of Education (1974) The act guarantees the job to the employees on their return from leave and allows retaining their benefits. Almost 80% of all U.S. workers are “covered under FMLA” (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 65). The act added administrative complexities in processing FMLA matters and outlined the cases for which leave can be taken.
Privacy Act of 1974 An act that obliges federal agencies to make information in personnel files available. The act provided the impetus to pass similar legislatures concerning state and private sector enterprises. HRM ensures policies exist on the way employees access their files.
Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 was An act that obliged employers to actively pursue a drug-free environment in the workplace. The act is applicable to government agencies, federal contractors, and companies receiving government funds ($25,000 or more) (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 91). Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications (2008) (AmericansFor SafeAccess, 2008) The influence of the act can be seen in many organizations beginning voluntary drug testing. Establishing a policy for a free-drug environment, dissimilate it to employees, and providing substance abuse awareness programs.
Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 The act prohibits employers in the private sector from using lie-detectors (polygraph tests) in employment decisions. The act stopped the abuse in administering the polygraph tests, outlining and protecting employees’ rights. The applicability in the workplace includes governing the cases in which polygraph tests can be used as well the standards for taking the tests, and record-keeping.
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) of 1988 The act provides the requirements for employers on changing the staffing level in their company. The act is applicable to companies with 100 or more employees, closing a facility, or laying off 50 or more employees. The act establishes a notification period of 60 days. The act ensures the protection of employees’ rights The act provides specific guidelines to follow for HRM when laying off employees. Additionally, the act outlines the exceptions for such notifications.

References

Americans SafeAccess. (2008). Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications. Americans for Safe Access. Web.

Brunner, B. (2007). The Wage Gap A History of Pay Inequity and the Equal Pay Act. Pearson Education, Inc. Web.

DeCenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2007). Fundamentals of human resource management (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

ProCon. (2009). Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell. ProCon.org. Web.