Coal Shovling Case

907 Words4 Pages
Case 1: Any employer is legally allowed to have its own standards for their interview process as long as all of the questions, verbal or written, pertain to the job opening. Per the United States office of personal management, cognitive tests pose questions designed to estimate applicants' potential to use mental processes to solve work-related problems or to acquire new job knowledge. Throughout the United States this is a common practice for the majority of civil service positions, however in this case, I do believe that the applicant might have a case against this employers without knowing any further details. This is due to the fact that coal-shovling is a manual labor position that does not require a high level of thinking or need for…show more content…
Currently the applicant is unable to meet the scheduled work hours for this position and changing or shifting this work to another employee would cause undue hardship. Midwest New Media state on its websites that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is who oversees these types of claims, and has interpreted an undue hardship to mean anything more than regular administrative costs, anything that reduces workplace efficiency or impairs workplace safety, anything infringing on other employees' job rights or causes those said employees' to carry the accommodated employee's share of burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation. In this case, allowing the employee to be off every Saturday would reduce the company’s efficiency or require additional cost in overtime thus causing undue hardship for the…show more content…
In this case the actions of the hiring manager are legal in part of the affirmation action plan. While the courts express strong disapproval of numerical quotas, many organizations have come to realize that they have a significant under representation of women in various job

More about Coal Shovling Case

Open Document