Law, ethics, and corporate governance

¶ … Ethics and Corporate Governance

Strong Steel Company: Case study

Under the 1990 Americans with Disability Act, workers that are protected under the law from discrimination in hiring and promotion include "any individual with a disability who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities; or (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment" (Henderson 1997). One of the categories of employee protected by Title II of the ADA directly relates to Joe Manage's situation at the Strong Steel Company. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act: Title II Technical Assistance Manual published by the U.S. government "Individuals who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities" cannot be discriminated against, based upon that impairment. Specific examples of physical impairments classified as disabilities "include orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV disease (symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism."

Joe's cardiovascular problems thus clearly give him protected status under the ADA. An employer must make reasonable accommodations for a qualified employee's disability. Joe distinguished himself for his first two years on the job, and only fell afoul of company management when the fact that he was taking medication for his condition and falling asleep at meetings became noticeable. It was at that time that the company became aware of Joe's medical problems. Joe apparently informed the company voluntarily of these problems. He apparently did not want the Strong Steel Company to think that he was staying up late or doing illegal drugs or that his apparent inattention during meetings was due to negative, controllable causes (It would have been illegal for his supervisor to ask if Joe was having medical problems, when and if Joe's sleepiness was brought up as a subject between the two men).

Although a company must make reasonable accommodations for an employee's disability, this does not mean that the company must make every possible, conceivable accommodation to the point that it would drive the company out of business or put clients or other employees at risk. For example, if Joe had to take his medication for the rest of his life and was operating heavy machinery, the fact he could fall asleep at any time could be of grave danger to his fellow workers. But in this instance, Joe no longer had to take his medicine and operated in a managerial capacity. He supervised employees, rather than engaged in hands-on work himself,

Joe may have been hired 'at will,' and could theoretically be fired at any time, but he received numerous indications that his employment was satisfactory and/or commendable. The 'at will' status of employees can be murky, however, if an employer makes statements, "either during the hiring process or after" that the employee will be fired only for good cause, including saying "you'll always have a home here as long as you do a good job," or "we never fire an employee who's performing well" (Nolo, 2010). In such situations, "especially if the comments have been made repeatedly" the employer may not be able to fire the employee at will. This seems to be the case with Joe, given the statements he received from his supervisors (Nolo, 2010). In the future, it would be wise for the Strong Steel Company to be careful about making such sweeping statements to employees, to protect the company's interests should the employee use such statements as evidence that they could only be fired with a 'cause.'

Even if the employer argues that there was no implied contract about his employment status, Joe's firing seems clearly linked to his ADA-qualified disability, given that he was told, after he returned to his employment after his operation that his employer felt that Joe was not doing a good job because of his heart problems. Joe, however, had only taken part-time leave for a relatively short period of time, and a week off, and was soon back to working with no restrictions. Combined with his previous, satisfactory performance reviews, this suggests that disability-based discrimination was behind Joe's termination.

Age discrimination is also a factor in the scenario, given that Joe's position was given to a younger worker whom might presumably command a smaller salary, and be cheaper to give health insurance to, as well other benefits. "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training" (EEOC, 2010).