Reply to Discussion Board

need you to reply to the two discussion board below. Make sure you put which post it belong to so I can attached it to the correct Post.

Post 1

Should Kane receive credit for his previous years of employment with the Company?

Kane should not receive credit for his previous years of employment with the Company as he was treated essentially as a new hire each time he was rehired. The same process that was implemented for new hires is the same process Kane went through. His previous years of employment will not count the last time he was rehired. “If a former employee with less than one year’s prior service is rehired, the employee will be considered a new employee and will not be eligible for prior service recognition for seniority or benefit plan participation purposes.” (SHRM, 2019)

Compare the weight to be given the Company doctor to that of Kane’s personal doctor.

The weight of the Company doctor will hold more significance as the Company doctor will have more experience with what the conditions are that arise from working in the facility. Kane’s doctor has the knowledge of his past medical issues however, is not aware of the aspect of the facility that can cause medical conditions.

What level of proof should be used in this decision?

The level of proof that should be used in this decision is what is called clear and convincing evidence. “The truth of the facts asserted is highly probable. This level of proof is used most commonly in disciplinary matters that are noncriminal in nature, such as excessive absences, unacceptable performance…” (Holley, 2016, P. 611) There is clear and convincing evidence that indicates the medical records were not accurate and the company has the proof (paper trail) to show that.

Now you decide. Did the Company have just cause to terminate James Kane? If so, why? If not, why not?

The Company has just cause to terminate James Kane as he clearly filled out false information on a medical form that stated the consequences of not filling it out accurately. James’s excuse that he did not know at the time he had this issue does not line up with the medical records personally and by the Company. Mr. Kane signed and dated the form acknowledging that all medical information was fully disclosed and accurate. The Company does not want to be held liable for issues that occur with employees medically while working, which is why it is imperative they have a policy in place of full disclosure of medical issues in order to help or prevent any negative situations. Mr. Kane has signed a document and it was plainly indicated that it was false information and the Company has just cause to fire Mr. Kane.

References

Holley, W. H., Jennings, K. M., & Wolters, R. S. (2016). The Labor Relations Process. Boston,

MA: Cengage Learning.

SHRM. (2019, August 16). Rehire Eligibility and Service Recognition. Retrieved from

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-

samples/policies/pages/cms_020356.aspx

Post 2

Should kane receive credit for his previous years of employment with the Company?

Yes, Kane should receive credit for his previous years of employment with The Company. He put in hard labor and time with this organization before these issues came up and should be treated as such. Multiple times he was laid off and rehired so I feel his productivity, dedication and sincerity warrants his previous years to be credited.

Compare the weight to be given the Company doctor to that of Kane’s personal doctor.

Both doctors are specialist in their areas and should be treated as such. However, I feel that the company doctor has the company’s best interest in hand in preventing a recordable incident but also wants to provide basic care to the employees. Kane’s personal doctor has been seeing to him for a while now and knows his capabilities to the extent of is he able to work and be productive and also if his illness is a diseases or not.

What level of proof should be used in this decision?

The organization should look at the situation as a whole. I feel they are targeting those specific questions and hold it against Kane because the application said if you are unsure then ask questions. Perhaps he was sure that the application asked if he had a disease and also sure that he hasn’t been told he had a disease from a medical practitioner. Yes, medical personnel can understand what certain symptoms and diagnose mean but to the average person like Kane, if it’s not broken down to the lowest level and flat out said “this is a disease” then he wouldn’t think he had one. Kane was honest throughout the entire application process and noted the questions that pertained to him, so I think there shouldn’t be any doubt that he was being honest on those questions too.

In the case of McCorkle-v-Scheinker, the court ruled in favor of the employer because the employee knowing admitted to providing incomplete or misleading information on his application. I feel our case is different and understanding both sides with the lack of understanding medical terminology and the Company that clearly understands medical

diagnosis and the hazards that some present; coupled with understanding fully of terminology within the medical field I feel the Company didn’t have just cause to terminate Mr. Kane. Clearly the organization is saying that Mr. Kane new that he had a disease that he “purposely” withheld, but the organization is throwing a red flag on it because they feel Mr. Kane should know that chronic renal insufficiency and fatty liver is a disease. However, Dr. Stanwhich, the organization’s medical doctor says the word disease wasn’t mentioned when the union asked how would they have handled it differently. This leads me to believe that if their own medical doctor didn’t see the word “disease” to know it was a disease and Mr. Kane hadn’t heard the word disease to know it was a disease then the employee wasn’t trying to hide the incident but was actually truthfully answering the question on the medical form.

Now you decide. Did the Company have just cause to terminate James Kane? If so, why? If not, why not?

The ADA places restrictions on employers when it comes to asking job applicants to answer medical questions, take a medical exam, or identify a disability.

An employer may not ask a job applicant, for example, if he or she has a disability (or about the nature of an obvious disability). An employer also may not ask a job applicant to answer medical questions or take a medical exam before making a job offer.

An employer may ask a job applicant whether they can perform the job and how they would perform the job. The law allows an employer to condition a job offer on the applicant answering certain medical questions or successfully passing a medical exam, but only if all new employees in the same job have to answer the questions or take the exam.

Once a person is hired and has started work, an employer generally can only ask medical questions or require a medical exam if the employer needs medical documentation to support an employee’s request for an accommodation or if the employer has reason to believe an employee would not be able to perform a job successfully or safely because of a medical condition.

The law also requires that the employers keep all medical records and information confidential and in separate medical files.

References

www.coursehero.com › file › What-level-of-proof-should-be-used (Links to an external site.)

www.eeoc.gov › laws › practices › inquiries_medical (Links to an external site.)

www.preemploymentscreen.com › Background Checks