Selected Case: McClement v. Port Authority, 11-3083 (3rd Circuit, 2012)- ADA acc

Question

Selected Case: McClement v. Port Authority, 11-3083 (3rd Circuit, 2012)- ADA accommodation

1. Introduction: Include a summary of the history of the legal action, including information regarding the company, the lawsuit and the HR policies/or actions which contributed to the legal action.

2. Literature Review: Review literature regarding current HR theories on diversity in the workplace and the strategies utilized to address this diversity. Employ parallel cases to help analyze both sides of the argument.

3. Analysis: Review the decision and its place in the development of human resource policy. Do you affirm or disagree with the decision? What do you believe will be the larger impact on employee rights and employer practices?

4. Synthesis: Identify and suggest strategies to move the company not only to compliance, but to recognizing the value of diversity in the workplace 5. Conclusion: Present a summary of information and recommended solutions, with consideration given to implementation of strategy and implications for company stakeholders.

seperate sections

Explanation / Answer

PATH is a transportation company that serves Northern New Jersey and New York City, offering rapid transportation by rail between the two places since 1908. The case revolves around a claim of discrimination regarding age made by employee Anna McClement, who accused the company after she was suspended for using her phone while on the job, violating PATH rules and getting disciplined but afterwards being unable to earn a promotion because cases of disciplinary action don’t allow to post for promotions while the case is being investigated, for up to a year. McClement claimed that because of her age she was not picked for promotions after this process was over. While PATH won the case and was able to justify McClement not getting promoted for reasons not concerning age, one can see how McClement, a woman who is 47 and part of a population that is often discriminated on the job market, might have felt like this was related to her age. PATH should make the process of discipline go more smoothly with is employees and have better HR programs that can communicate clearly with the employees. The decision of the court to rule in favor of PATH can lead to negative consequences if the company does not update its HR policies regarding promotions and disciplinary actions, as well as communication with employees. Disciplinary actions should not affect the individual’s opportunity for a better job eventually, they should serve to prevent something from happening again. Employees from protected groups should also be assured that they are equally being considered for the promotions and opportunities. The company should definitely learn to appreciate diversity in the workplace more, as individuals from different backgrounds have each their own particular view and contribution to offer. They should all be assured and taken into account. I believe the solution for this is affirmative actions for protected diverse populations in both hiring and representation. Promotions should also have a quota of posts diversity. The company should make sure employees know what they did wrong when they get disciplined and work with them to avoid this from happening again, instead of instituting slow and confusing processes that might block them from participating in projects and jobs where they might be a good fit for. McClement did break company policy and was disciplined according to the policy as well, but this, instead of being a learning experience, made her feel threatened and discriminated and ended up on a legal case that doesn’t set up the best example when it comes to HR solutions in the future.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.