Case Study: Hostile Workforce Discrimination

1. The first issue I noticed was BSF is hiring a number of HRER graduates. This could mean possible age discrimination against those candidates that are not recent graduates, which could mean older applicants might not be considered. BSF hiring a high number of HRER graduates could unintentionally be discriminating against person 40 or over violating the ADEA.

2. BSF recognizing primarily the graduates they just hired for positive contributions to the company and giving them extremely high performance evaluations could show the company favoring the newer employees over the old employees. These actions could be considered discriminating, if they fail to recognize the long-term employees for recognition and performance evaluations. This could result in possible hostile work conditions between the newer and older workers. This climate could show bias and create claims under the ADEA. Additionally, employees working these conditions might

As part of a continuing condition of employment for BSF, the employer enforced a non-competition agreement. David Walsh writes, “Noncompetition agreements are contracts that restrict the ability of former employees to form or join businesses that compete with their former employers for specified periods of time following employment.” (Walsh, 2013-2016, pg. 750) These agreements need to be written a certain way with precise information enclosed in the agreement. In a case, Nanomech v. Suresh, David Walsh writes, “In order for a non-compete agreement to be valid, three requirements must be met: 1) the covenantee must have a valid interest to protect, 2) the geographical restriction must not be overly broad, and 3) a reasonable time limit must be imposed.” (Walsh, 2013-2016, pg. 753) The assigned materials did not mention the time limit that was implemented in the agreement or did not state a geographical region. Without a time limit and geographical region the non-compete agreement would be invalid because of being too