During the last century, the preponderance of laws in the United States, which were intended to shelter employees from unreasonable labor behavior and were carried out by business owners, got ratified as a consequence of the work movements and apprehension of workers’ rights. This took place in the time of the Industrial Revolution. More particularly, laws became endorsed and imposed to thwart bias of besieged groups such as women, children, and minor religions and racial victims. (Kenneth D. & Gibson E., pg 163) This was made to ensure that all workers are equal in their rights with respect to employment, endorsement, and termination decisions. This paper will examine a situation, when an employee violation of a company dress code led to the employee termination.
Buy Business Law Analysis essay paper online
Statement of Facts
A William-Shannon Investment is a respected company with strict business foundation of a family setting. WSI is more of a conservative company which offers luxurious joints mostly to respectable and exclusive clients on holiday vacations. The general idea of WSI is to offer outstanding quality sense of home for their clients. WSI efforts are geared towards achieving best services, hospitality and family atmosphere by presenting proper privacy and safety to their clients. To achieve such accomplishment, the company invests significant funds in educating its employees. The employee is the face of WSI. Employee trainings tend to teach staff to be aware of WSI vision and mission. The first steps are pre-employment drug screening and background check. New employees are trained thoroughly to meet WSI standards. Above all, all employees must acquaint themselves with the company handbook and are obliged to read it through before putting a formal signature on it. The formal signature signifies that the employee has fully understood the company policies in regard to dress code, pay rate and sexual harassment among many other policies. The policies are set to create a smooth workflow and relations between the employee and the customers (Henry, p. 56).
An employee at one of the exotic properties of WSI conflicted with WSI company policies several times. On the first occasion the employee received a verbal warning. When he violated dress code the second time, the employee received a formal written final warning. However, the employee did not heed to the authority demands and warnings and was caught on a third similar dress code violation that led to the employee dismissal and termination. As a result, the employee filed a case against the company for unlawful actions against him.
Case Presentation (Federal And State Statutes)
At the moment, there are no federal laws to deal with the dress code and its violation. There is yet no law to decide what kind of dress code should be legally accepted at working institutions. However, federal laws barring gender and religious prejudice may guard a member of staff who wants to dress in their own way at work. Therefore, it means that a business owner may be able to put a dress code into effect and still be in observance with these anti-discrimination laws. The strength of the NLR Act of 1935 was disputed at a Supreme Court in 1937 in a case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Loughlin Steel Corporation (1937). Under the Supreme Court, however, its members made the NLR Act of 1935 extremely reliable in a historic judgment. That began an uprising resulting to the Federal government being involved to deal with any revolving unfair labor practices. The employer, however, still has to be protected even if to consider all these goodwill measures to protect the employee,
Labor prejudice may take a number of forms. However, the laws purposely ruling out employment practices, such as discriminatory engagement, sponsorship, job project, termination, compensation and various types of harassment, were passed by Federal law in the early 1960s. Display of underpants, as a form of articulateness, cannot be granted a strong level of defense by both federal and state laws in the place of work. If an employer or management policy objects to an employee’s way of dressing, the management is mandated to lawfully fire the employee.
Identification of Legal Issues Presented
The dismissed employee from WSI had claimed that his right to dress up to his wish had been violated by discriminating his dressing style. The employee argued that when he violated the dress code he was off duty. In this case, the employee already contradicts himself when he fully accepts that he was aware he had violated the dress code but was off duty. His second argument that the dress code was not fully defined is a contradiction to the first statement of him being off duty. The argument that he was off duty clearly shows that the employee was aware he had violated the dress code. To top it all, the employee had been issued with two similar warnings on his dress code violation. Therefore, there was no way the employee could have won the case. The WSI management had clearly put structures in place to address its policies, and, hence, cannot be blamed for unlawfully terminating the employee.
Analyzing Legal Issues
Most employees always complain of the strict dress code rules, and that dress code violates their human rights. The WSI employee’s allegation was baseless according to law. The violation could not have been under any of the three basic entities of sex, belief and race found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, if a dress code is in reliance to the image of certain business needs and is stamped homogeneously, it will not normally infringe workers’ civil rights. The WSI dress code policy was applied uniformly to all workers. There were no mentions of another employee violating the dress code except the abovesaid one. The terminated employee got warned two times in a row. The employee was acting out of defiance to the authority.
Probable Resolution of Dispute
WSI is a respectable company and a brand at the same time. The company associates itself with conservative settings that cannot provoke anyone’s freedom. The terminated employee was a danger to other employees as they felt being sexually harassed by the violation of dress code. At the same time, the employee was more of a liability than an asset to the company. There is no promise that any change would have been achieved if the employee was retained for the third time. (Perritt H., pg 129).The best applicable method of dealing with the case was to dismiss the employee. This would be beneficial to third parties, the company and the employee. The employee learnt a lesson while the company illustrated to other employees what dress code violation can lead to.
There are no federal dress code requirements formulated. Dress code legal problems alarm only gender bias and spiritual bigotry. Dress codes are tolerable as long as they are not considered to be bigoted. Companies may formulate a dress code to display its image and mission. Other companies may do this in observation of employee security and health hazards. Limiting dress code can express a more qualified tone to the customers. Employees who do not follow the dress code should be terminated. Violating a dress code may make customers associate the business with laxity in maintaining standards and associate it with employee rudeness and low quality services.