This paper examines the importance of employment law knowledge for human resource managers, with particular focus on two case studies: a discrimination claim brought by deaf UPS employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and an age discrimination case involving an ambulance driver applicant. The paper explores how courts have interpreted reasonable accommodations for hearing-impaired workers and the legitimacy of age as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). It concludes with reflections on the evolving and complex nature of employment law and the need for managers to maintain accessible, up-to-date legal resources.
It is essential for an employee manager to have a solid understanding of employment law because their knowledge — or ignorance — of it is, in all likelihood, the primary cause of employment-related legal actions being brought against a company. The vast majority of employment-related lawsuits arise from an employer simply not knowing the rules. The rules are, for the most part, clear, and understanding them and implementing their parameters within one's business is a key step in limiting legal exposure. For example, a manager who understands what a company must do to legally terminate an employee will be far more likely to avoid legal ramifications than one who is ignorant of the law governing employee hiring and firing.
That being said, employment law is also a difficult area to navigate because of its numerous sub-disciplines and its constantly evolving nature. Even if a manager takes the time to learn a specific area of employment law, they could still find themselves facing a lawsuit simply because the law is unclear or has changed. This is particularly true when dealing with employees or potential employees with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one of the least understood areas of employment law because the courts have not arrived at a concrete, unified interpretation of its provisions. As a result, it is nearly impossible for a manager to fully understand what is and is not permissible when hiring, declining to hire, or terminating an employee with some form of disability.
One of the cases that most surprised me involved the Americans with Disabilities Act. Several deaf employees of United Parcel Service (UPS) brought a discrimination action under the Act. During a training program, the employer provided special video sessions on handling the anthrax threat. The deaf workers claimed they were discriminated against because the employer never provided interpreters or subtitles for the videos. The employer countered that it was not required to provide a special accommodation because the deaf employees were able to watch the videos and because, for purposes of handling packages, deafness does not meet the legal definition of a disability.
"Court rules employer must provide interpreters or captions"
"Age used as occupational qualification in hiring denial"
"Importance of accessible legal resources for HR"
You’re 41% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.