Equal Employment Employee Rights
Equal Employment Employee Rights
Throughout history, several laws have been created to help protect both the employee and employer from liability issues pertaining to employee privacy or discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Three such laws created to monitor these actions include Employee Monitoring, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. All three acts will be examined in further detail through present-day court cases, leading to examinations of the implications for the HR department, and the creation of policies to remain in compliance.
Employee Monitoring
Employee rights have become one of the most important topics in HRM. Multiple issues surrounding equal employment opportunity and the rights of employees exist in modern organizations. The definition of employee monitoring is the ability of an employer to track, monitor, and search an employees computer, e-mail, fax, or phone records on company time (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007). This is legal for an employer if the employee has been made aware of company policies and procedures before employment.
Employee monitoring is often referred to as “spying on employees.” Employers should have open lines of communication between the organization and the employee to detour this way of thinking. The HRM department can implement procedural changes in managing this issue by requiring employees to sign off on the company policy in the employee handbook regarding the monitoring off all company property. The handbook policy would be the governing force for any issues pertaining to the monitoring of an employees computer or any other company property. It will also educate the employee prior to employment of the company policy.
A recent court case relating to employee monitoring is Sporer v. UAL Corporation (2009). In this case, the US District Court ruled in favor of UAL Corporation. Sporer was caught by his employer to have had pornographic videos in his work e-mail, which then were transferred to his personal e-mail. UAL Corporations e-mail policy states: “Message content must always be professional. It is strictly prohibited to transmit or store any messages or data that compromises or embarrasses the company, contains explicit or implicit threats, obscene, derogatory, profane, or otherwise offensive language, or graphics, defames abuses, harasses, or violates the legal rights of others” (Sporer v. UAL Corporation, 2009, No. C 08-02835 JSW.)
UAL Corporation required Sporer to sign off on its companys policies and procedures at the time of employment. The HR department also sent e-mails to Sporer stating that this was against company policy, but Sporer did not take these warnings seriously. This is why the HR department of organizations creates policies and procedures to train, educate, and ensure that employees understand what is expected. In most cases, as this case, Sporers employment was terminated.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 was written to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Under the law, companies may not terminate a female employee for being pregnant, refuse to make a positive employment decision based on ones pregnancy, or deny insurance coverage to the woman,” (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007, p. 64.) Discrimination of pregnancy constitutes discrimination under Title VII, and employers who currently have 15 or more employees must abide by this act. Employment agencies and labor organizations must also comply with Title VII. Pregnant woman should retain the same rights as all other individuals and not be discriminated against because of pregnancy.
In 1978, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to the sex discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Kohl & Green Law, 1999). President Jimmy Carter signed the PDA into law on October 31, 1978. The PDA affected three types of employee benefit programs. The first is hospitalization and major medical insurance plans, second is temporary disability and salary continuation plans, and third is sick leave policies. The PDA covered what Congress first intended when it made discrimination illegal. The PDA Act was a result of the Courts decision in Gilbert v. General Electric when the high court challenged Congress to amend Title VII. Title VII needed to include “pregnancy discrimination” along with the definition of “sex discrimination” (Kohl & Green Law, 1999).
Alicia – I need a present day court case that has challenged the PDA of 1978, it is a requirement of the paper.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 was essentially the