Discrimination in the Workplace

Case Studies Week 6

        Discrimination in the workplace happens all the time.  We hear about it more and more.  Discrimination against employees from their employers is unlawful.  Employees have rights when it comes to discrimination.  It is important for employers to follow the law to prevent lawsuits from employees that feel that their rights have been violated by their employers.  Another growing issue is employee’s privacy issues when it comes to social media sites.  When do employees and their employers cross a line? In this paper we will look at three separate cases dealing with these issues.  The first case we will look at is Cortez v. Walmart Stores.  The legal issue in this case is whether Cortez was discriminated against and skipped over for a promotion because of his age.  The second case is Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High School.  The legal issue that is discussed in this case is whether a disabled trainee’s rights were violated under the American’s with Disability Act (ADA).  The third case is Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.  The legal issue being debated in this case is whether or not employees Facebook page is entitled to privacy from her employer.  

Cortez v. Wal-Mart Stores

        The legal issue in this case is whether Sam’s Club discriminated against Robert Cortez because of his age.  “The jury found that Sam’s Club had violated the ADEA and awarded damages to Cortez” (Walsh, 2016, page 602).  The court also concluded that the active coaching in Cortez’s file did not render him unqualified for a promotion.

        The court concluded that the active coaching in Cortez’s file did not render him unqualified for promotion and thus unable to establish a prima facie case because for to show that he is or was qualified for the promotion he sought after, he only had to show that he had the necessary qualifications that were needed to perform the job.  Cortez also showed evidence that his coaching was given on an opinion of his performance, not his actual performance, and that the coaching he received was not deserved.  The court found that “the no coaching qualification can be used as a tool for unlawful discrimination” (Walsh, 2016, page 604).  

        The evidence that was given to the jury showed that Cortez was discriminated against.  The evidence included Cortez’s long history of managerial experience between Albuquerque, Puerto Rico, and Texas.  During this time he was receiving above average performance evaluations but he was still denied promotions.  The evidence also showed that he was discriminated against was that Double day had told Cortez and Wright that it was time for younger managers to take over so that they needed to step aside and let the younger ones come in.

        Employers can address performance problems before they actually become a problem.  Employers can be proactive when it comes training employees, addressing performance issues immediately, and document every meeting with employees that address performance.  Employers can be proactive when it comes to training employees by anticipating productivity needs and train the employees to meet the demand.  Another way employees can address performance problems is to address performance issues immediately.  When speaking with employees about performance issues be specific about what the problem is and tell the employee you expect them to improve the condition.  Employers can document the meeting and results from the meeting so that if the problem persists, the documentation can come in handy.  When it comes to performance improvement programs, depending on what the performance issues were, I think that employers can limit employment opportunities to their employees.  Employees that go on performance improvement programs is to improve their performance because usually they are lacking.  I don’t think employees should be rewarded with promotions if their performance is lacking.  This case was different though because Cortez was wrongly put on a performance plan.