Human Resource Law Essay Example for Free

Hu part Resource Law EssayThis paper depart show that this scenario provides a case for sex contrariety. sex unlikeness is illegal under style vii (Bennett-Alexander Hartman, 2007). In addition, this paper will show what legal and honourable come to the fores muster up in this case. Furthermore, this paper will show what dockage should do in this case. By using the female employee versus the male employee to serve the node the lodge would be in violation of Title VII for gender discrimination. Title VII truths regarding gender cover the full scope of the handicraft relationship which describes that gender may not be the al-Qaida of any(prenominal) decision related to employment unless gender is used as a bona fide occupational cleverness (BFOQ). Customer preference is not a legitimate and protected motive to treat former(a)wise drug-addicted employees differently based on gender.Additionally, leading the female employee to swear out the customer over the male employee would be in violation of the gunstocks rotation policy. The policy states that each working day, dickens employees work in the store one working the front and one working the back. Rotation occurs on a periodical basis in order to disperse bearings fairly. Since this is company policy, there is no flexibility to change that policy and to rotation schedule clearly states that it is the male employees turn to earn commission. Discrimination based on gender is illegal and not in keeping with good business practices of efficiency, maximizing resources, and avoiding unnecessary liability.Title VII IssuesDiscrimination comes in all shapes and sizes, and managers have to be careful not to cross the verge and do the wrong thing. Companies do not want lawsuits for discrimination or anything else. The stores better(p) customer, Imelda,probably did not intend to offend anyone nor did she probably know that she was discriminating against anyone. Many times discrimination is not intended. Customers generally believe they are always right and get what they want. However, in this instance the customer is genuinely wrong. Requesting a female employee over a male employee is a form of discrimination, gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is illegal under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander Hartman, 2007).If cork asks tom turkey to step aside and allow Mary to assist Imelda with her purchases, he will be in violation of Title VII and enkindle be held liable to the employee for gender discrimination. Customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender (Bennett-Alexander Hartman, 2007, p. 283). Legally and ethically, Manager docking facility cannot swap employees Tom and Mary simply because Imelda wants it.ChoiceThis is not an easy situation. On one hand, the customer is promising to bargain five pairs of fit out if she gets a female employee to help her. This would be a huge purchase for the store, slap-up for the profit margin as well as a large commission for the employee. On the other hand, not providing a female employee may denote a missed sale, Imelda may draw a blank the store. Swapping employees would fishing rig Tom out of his commission. This would be unethical. Tom deserves his commission he should not be asked or told to perpetrate this up. The Shoe Store has very clear company policies. Company policy does not allow two employees to split the commission (UOPX, 2013, para. 5). As stated previously, having Tom give up his commission would not be fair. Company policy rotates employees to keep commissions as fair and equal as possible (UOPX, 2013, para. 5).Manager Bob will need to explain to Imelda as niminy-piminyly and calmly as possible that he is very sorry, but cannot provide her with a female employee. Bob should promise Imelda that Tom is a very nice man and that she will be in very capable hands ensure her that Tom knows shoes and w ill treat her and her feet right. Bob should smile and guarantee her that she will be happy with the service she receives. Bob should apologize for the problem, explain that he contacted his regional manager to see if he could earn an exception to company policy this time and was told no, and explain that the company risks a discrimination lawsuit. Finally, tell Imelda that he understands if she chooses to shop elsewhere today andapologize again. Bob should not get into an argument with the customer it is out of the stores control.In any business, a written policy can avoid or prevent lawsuits. The shoe store chain of mountains has clearly established that the rotation of two employees daily or weekly will occur in the store to create directness in commission sales. In addition, if only two employees are usher one works in the back of the store and the other works in front, this clearly creates fairness of commissions earned (pay), good business ethics practice. Working in sales requires a lot of ad hominem judgment from a company representative. By its nature, the job relies heavily on social relationships and on persuasion. sales people also usually work on commission if they do not make the sale, they drop off cash. In the wrong hands, these elements can lead to unethical behavior, causing undue pressure on customers or vendors. Ethical behavior and doing the correct or right thing is at the forefront for salespeople today. Subsequently ethical performance is an individual process and training development related issues are important. Salespeople require guidelines on ethical, equating and discrimination issues.The guidelines should be formulated and clearly communicated to help employees to effectively deal with situations of equal pay, fairness, and or discrimination whenever the need arises. Job performance, employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction will prevail with knowledge and understanding of employment laws (Bennett-Alexander Hartman, 2007). What has guided the ethical issues is the set of standards the company has worked out from human reason by which the human actions to surpass Mary for Tom is ultimately creating wrong business ethics. Trading assign duties between sales and cost will not mix. The maximum concern for sales cannot go hand-in- with maximum concern for employees. Furthermore, the shoe store business has added structure to the business by creating this policy.If the manager deviates from the established policy, Bob will create unjust treatment or discrimination based on gender, which could result in a lawsuit. After Imelda flaccid her request that she wanted a female employee Bob was to enforce the companys policies to avoid a potential lawsuit. Bob did what was necessary to inform Imelda the companys polices and have Tom assist her with trying on shoes. Bob knows the company will lose moneybecause of the sales lost from this one client however, the ethical issue arises to do what is fair and correct according the shoe store policy. If Bob makes the switch and has Mary assist Imelda instead of Tom, Bob has violated the discrimination law-Title VII (gender) as well has violating the equal pay law (Bennett-Alexander Hartman, 2007). The decision is allow Tom to assist Imelda and loose the extra sales. In future, the suggestion to Imelda would be to come through at the store when a female worker is working the floor or to come in the store to see who is working the sales floor without putting the manager in the position to make compromises.ConclusionDiscrimination issues can get many companies into trouble. Knowing the law is important for any manager. When questions arise that cannot be answered easily, ask for help. Title VII does not allow discrimination because of gender, meaning a man cannot be treated differently from a female and vice versa. In this case, all must be treated equally. Company policy will not allow Tom and Mary to split the commission and asking Tom t o give up his commission would be illegal. Imelda will need to make her knowledge decision whether to shop at the Shoe Store and allow Tom to assist her or leave for another store or until another day. The company must do what is right, what is legal. The store must treats its employees properly and do what is legal and ethical. Whereas Imelda may not be happy, the company cannot do anything that may bring a lawsuit against them.ReferencesBennett-Alexander, D. D., Hartman, P. L. (2007). Employment law for business (5th ed.). New York, NY McGraw-Hill. University of Phoenix (UOPX). (2013). Week Three. Retrieved from University of Phoenix,