Hrm 546 - Human Resources Law - Discrimination

Discrimination

Jose E. Marquez Morales

HRM/546- Human Resources Law

June 13th, 2016.

Prof. Ismael Torres Pizarro

Discrimination

Case #1: Alicea v. Administracion de Servicios Medicos 2000 TSPR 157

I. Synthesis:

A man presents a lawsuit against his former employer for discrimination of illness since he was suspended from his job due to an improper conduct. Also, she indicates that he is actually protected under ADA act and Law 44 of discrimination. The company states that the suspension was due that the employer did not comply with an order that he signed regarding his drug addiction and that the consequences for not doing so states a suspension from his employment.

II. Controversy:

Is an employee with drug addiction be protected under the American Disabilities Act? If so, suspending a confirmed drug addict consider discrimination by the employer?

III. Decision:

Hon. Federico Hernandez Denton emitted the opinion on behalf of the court. After examining the information provided and considering case, the court determined that the Appellative did stated the correct statement. The petitioner is not protected under ADA and therefore, law 144. Since drug addiction does not counts as disability, the employee is not protected by such regulations. The court confirms the decision of the Appellative court indicating that his suspension was justified since a previous warning and notification was stated to him during the meetings with the employer.

IV. Supplemented Facts of the Case:

Luis Alicea Battle started working for ASEM as a supervisor. However, in December of 1993, he began acting improperly in the employment. This included absence and unjustified lateness to work. This unethical behavior led the employer to sanction Mr. Alicea from his employment. However, after the sanction passed, Mr. Alicea continued with his bad behavior that was later discovered by him of being due to an admitted drug addiction. After indicating his addiction, he later enter a shelter to receive treatment for his addiction. The treatment lasted approximately a month. Because of his continuous bad employment ethic, he was invited to a meeting with the employer to state that he violated the regulations of the employee manual and was discussed that if the problem continues, he would be laid off from the company. Mr. Alicea agreed to the terms and proceeded to sign a legal paper from the company acknowledging the consequences of future behavior. Even though he agreed, he continued with his behavior. Unfortunately he was laid off from the company for not complying with employee regulation stated in the employee manual. Along with that, he was indicated that an appeal can be done with the Appeal Committee in which he presented the claim, but was denied since the employee agreed to the terms and a legal document was indeed signed. Mr. Alicea presented a lawsuit against his employer for discrimination because of illness. He claims that he is protected under ADA Act and should be reinstated immediately. The Primary Court, denied the claim from Mr. Alicea stating that the laid off was done in a correct matter due to the unethical behavior he performed in his job. He presented an appeal with the Appellative’s Court which was also denied and therefore, presented a certiorari motion at the Supreme Court.

Case #2: Ibanez Benitez v Molinos de PR 114 TSPR 042

I.  Synthesis:

A woman presents a law suit against her former employer for discrimination based on age under Law 100 and by the Age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. She states that she was replaced in her employment for a younger employee. The employer states that her laid off was justified since she used a confidential document presenting the compensation of every employee to claim for unhappiness in her raise.

Controversy:

Can a replacement of an older employee for a younger be considered discrimination based on age taking law 100 in consideration?

 III. Decision:

The court understands that the petitioner was valid in her accusation but, the laid off ended up justified since the employee actually violated the employer’s standard for using confidential document without authorization. The court revokes the decision of the Appellative’s Court.

IV. Supplemental Facts:

Ms. Naty Ibanez started working for Molinos de PR as a secretary. Her actual hiring age was 60 years old. After a while in the employment, she later criticized the employee for apparently not raising her salaries to her expectations, which was declined by the employer. However, she was later laid off for using confidential information without the authorization of the employer. After her laid off, a 57 year old person was hired to take her position in the company. In this case, Ms. Ibanez presented a law suit with the Primary Court stating that there was discrimination in the case of age done by the employer under law 100 and the Age discrimination in Employment Act. The employer states that the employee was laid off due to infiltrating in confidential information involving the employees’ salaries to confront them on the unhappiness of her raise. The primary court established that the laid off was indeed justified since the employee did not complied with the employer standards of confidentiality and that the employee that replaced her was 3 years younger than her. Unsatisfied, she presented an appeal with the Appellative court stating discrimination. The court complied in favor of Ms. Ibanez stating that the employer discriminated to Ms. Ibanez even if the difference was only three years. Unsatisfied, a certiorari motion was presented with the Supreme Court by the employer.

Case #3: Lopez v. ITT Interamericana 097 TSPR 042

I.  Synthesis:

A man claims receiving an unjustified laid off by her former employer and discrimination for age for being replaced by a 30 year old person. The business claims that she was laid off in a justified way, since he was acting improperly with his supervisor for some time.

II. Controversy:

Does an employee being replaced by a 30 year old, be considered discriminatory under regulation 30 without proper analysis from the lawyer in the case?

II. Decision:

The court denies the decision of the Appellative Court stating that the laid off was justified since he did not complied with the supervisor. And also, that the reason of laid off does not counts as justified and also discriminatory towards the employee. The court revokes the decision of the Appellative Court and confirms the primary court’s decision.

IV. Supplemental Facts:

Ms. Hector Lopez worked for ITT Interamericana as Control Quality Manager. Fourteen years later was promoted to Distribution Manager of the company. The employer had a plan in which  the employees can retired in an early age at 55 years old instead of the regularly 65 years. However, in December 14, 1990, Mr. Lopez was laid off from the employment at 56 years old and was later replaced by a 30 year old person. For this matter, Mr. Lopez presented a lawsuit against his former employer for unjustified laid off and discrimination in the base of age. The primary court ruled in favor of the petitioner since the laid off was in fact discriminatory and unjustified, even though, the employer states that it was due to issues he had with his supervisor. Unsatisfied, the employer presented an appeal with the Appellative Court stating that it did not counted as a discriminatory laid off but can be counted only as unjustified. The court complied with the determination that the employer since the proof presented stated that they acted in an unjustified but was not protected under discriminatory acts from the employer. Unsatisfied, Mr. Lopez presented a certiorari motion in the Supreme Court stating that the laid off was unjustified and discriminatory.