Running Head: Assignment 4

Assignment 4
Bryan E. Cratty
Eliza Gordner
Marian University
BUS-358
October 20, 2013

Chap. 11 (pp.521-523): #3, 7, 9

#3
The court could say that the numerous comments regarding age did not show that age
was a underlying factor in the action taken, particularly when his replacement's age was
considered.
#7
Even though the Age Discrimination in the Employment Act protects older applicants
from discrimination based on age, an employer may be able to reject an older applicant if they
believe the applicant is overqualified and therefore likely to become bored or transfer to a
different job. Such an action by an employer can create problems by leaving older workers
without a job and without any preparation for a hostile employment action taken, at least
possibly, because of their age. The employer cannot be held liable. If someone is simply
overqualified then what the position is asking then the employer has the right to not hire that
person. If someone has a current position and they get fired for being overqualified for the
position they are doing then they most likely will have a case for age discrimination.
#9
Featherly would have to prove that he was more qualified than Gilbert for the position.
Additional information regarding other ends pursuant to the decrease in force would be helpful.
#2

Chap. 12 (pp. 584-585): #2, 4, 6, 8

The idea of accommodation is to allow an employee to perform the essential functions

Assignment 4

of his job; an employer is not required to accommodate a disabled worker by changing or

eliminating an essential function of the job. Accommodation also does not require the employer
to create a new job.
#4
An employer may not require a qualified individual with a disability to accept an
accommodation. If, however, the individual refuses a reasonable accommodation needed to
perform an essential function of the job or to eliminate a direct threat, the individual may no
longer be qualified for the job. A qualified individual with a disability is allowed to any and all
reasonable accommodations that are required by limitations caused by the disability and that will
provide an equal employment opportunity. The duty to provide reasonable accommodations is
an ongoing one. An employer should consider each request for an accommodation separately to
determine: (1) whether the accommodation is needed, (2) if needed, whether the
accommodation would be effective, and (3) if effective, whether providing the reasonable
accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
#6
Yes the employee has a claim under the ADA. The reason this is because the employee
was demoted for having a medical condition. An applicant is entitled to corrective damages if the
employer engaged in an unfair practice with hatred or with reckless indifference to the plaintiff's
federally protected rights.
#8
In cases where a disability truly avoids the individual from asking for a reasonable
accommodation and the employer knows about the person's disability and need for
accommodation, it is dangerous for an employer to fail to provide a needed accommodation that
does not impose an undue hardship. The employer has to meet the employee half-way, and if it
appears that the employee may need an accommodation but doesn't know how to ask for it, the
employer should do what it can to help."
Chap. 13 (pp. 641-643): #1, 3, 9
#1
Legitimate privacy providing does not give the job applicant in this case, protection under
the circumstances presented. This would also have to be determined under your state laws.
However, it does not state in the constitution that someone must not smoke or use tobacco
products.
#3
She could possibly win depending on the certain laws in her state. A person may not be
held liable for public discovery of facts about another unless he should reasonably have foreseen
that the person would be likely offended. The right protects persons only from public disclosures
that would be "highly offensive ... to a reasonable ... woman."
#9
In order to establish a claim of intrusion upon seclusion, the complainant must prove two
elements by a majority of the evidence: That there was "an intended significant invasion,
physically or otherwise, upon the privacy or seclusion of the complaining party," and that the
intrusion "would be highly offensive to the reasonable person.