As per your request, I am supplying you with some advice regarding the “Cheaper by the Dozen” supermarket case. The advice is based on issues and facts involved with the case.
Several employment law issues have emerged with regards to this case. Among them is the employer’s liability for injuries sustained by employees in the course of their employment contract. Clair was injured while working, which means that the employer has some responsibilities towards her. This issue is relevant in determining whether Clair is qualified to attain compensation as a result of the injury sustained. The issue of harassment is also prevalent in this case. Aspects of harassment have emerged with the way Dylan and John treat Clair, Rosario and Gwenda. They have become fond of asking sexual questions that are not deemed appropriate at the workplace setting. The male co-workers have also adopted the tendency of rubbing their breasts and squeezing their buttocks with every opportunity that they get. Larry, on the other hand, takes every opportunity to get back at Claire based on her dressing and way of life publicly. There is also the issue of discrimination. This is quite vivid where Rosaria’s application for promotion is halted due to her sexual orientation. The employer does not feel that their religion would auger with her sexual preferences.
Several legal principles can be provided with regards to the above issues. To begin with, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is applicable in this case. The Act is regarded as a substantial change that has graced the area of workplace anti-discrimination regulation during the last decade. The Fair Work Act precludes discrimination by employers towards employees throughout the employment relationship. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 342(1) has outlined 13 attributes that should not be used to discriminate against employees. An employer is not supposed to take adverse action against an employee because of his/her color, sex, race, sexual preference, sex, physical or mental disability, age, marital status, pregnancy, family or career’s responsibilities, political opinion, religion, social origin or national extraction (Sappideen et al., 2016, p.642). The employer would be working in a discriminatory manner if they denied an employee an opportunity
To view this post and other posts in this category please pay the amount below