This article is a discussion of views based on two scenarios in reference to Dawn’s and Hartman’s Employment Law for Business. In the first Wendy Swan is given the responsibility of hiring two employees. One of them is required to have advanced engineering knowledge, while no prerequisites are required for the other one. Wendy‘s newspaper advertisement requests resume from recent college graduates, preferably in the engineering field. It is important to carefully consider the aspect of language use during job advertisement because, some phrases may be considered as discriminatory (Sargeant, 2012).
For instance, the use of recent graduates in Wendy’s advertisements may put the company at risk of being sued by older workers. They might argue that they are discouraged from applying for the job. This could be concluded from the reasonable argument that; older workers are less likely to have graduated recently. On the other hand, although one of the posts needed an applicant with complex engineering knowledge, the advert did not indicate so. As a result, it avoided the perception of discrimination against young workers, who might not have acquired complex knowledge due to their young age.
As Dawn and Hartman (1995) explain, hiding some information may be considered as misrepresentation. For instance, in Wendy’s case, though the second vacancy did not request any prerequisites, the advertisement preferred engineering graduates for both vacancies. An applicant who qualified for the job but did not possess a degree in engineering could be justified in suing the company for fraud. They could reasonably argue that though not necessary, the degree requirement was used to discourage them from pursuing the position. Notably, a small misconception could result in legal complications for a company; therefore, it is important to use expressions that might not be reasonably deduced as pinpointing an intention to discriminate.
In the second scenario, scenario, Kayla who is a supervisor is faced with a dilemma when customers complain that they cannot understand Alex on the phone. Alex is a Roman employee, working temporarily in the company. Kayla is concerned that the company will lose customers if Alex is allowed to carry on with his managerial duties. On the other hand, she is worried about the implications that the company would face, if they relieved Alex of some of his managerial duties on the basis of his foreign accent. According to Dawn and Hartman (1995), upholding language restrictive policies in workplaces has caused a lot of controversy in many companies. Also, such policies could be considered as a factor affecting discrimination related to nationality; although there are exceptional cases, where they are justifiable.
For instance, If Alex was to continue performing his managerial duties, there could be miscommunication between him and the customers. This could lead the company into making heavy losses, or even face legal implications. On the other hand, relieving Alex of some of his responsibilities could be legally justified as a way of facilitating better communication with the clients. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).
However, Kayla should make sure that Alex is not relieved of other duties, except those that could hinder effective communication between him and the customers. Besides, she should give details of her decision very carefully to Alex. This would make sure that she does not generate an impression of inadequacy, segregation, and intimidation; which could result in a discriminative work atmosphere for Alex.
Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (1995). Employment law for business (pp. 8-10). Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Retrievedon 13 February, 2017.
Sargeant, M. (2012). Age discrimination in employment. Gower Publishing, Ltd.