Human resource management Human resource management involves management of employees in an Its scope includes recruitment, selection, orientation, training, and retaining employees, a scope that is regulated by external environmental factors such as legal forces. This paper seeks to explore a legal case that involves human resource management. The paper summarizes the case and offers an analysis towards a personal conclusion. Summary of the case The case involves three parties in a legal suit, “Maryann Castillo” who is the plaintiff, “The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” who is the plaintiff’s representative and “JC Wings Enterprises L. L.C. ” who is the defendant and Castillo’s former employer.
The case claims that Wings branch in Bayou discriminated against Castillo on grounds of her pregnancy. This happened through implementation of the branch’s policy of suspending pregnant women from work after their third month of pregnancy, a policy that the plaintiff’s representative says is illegal, and which has led to the suit. Even though the plaintiff had worked for the restaurant for about three years since the year 2008 as an attendant, she was forced off her employment because of her pregnancy despite her doctor’s advice that she could work even up to the ninth month of her pregnancy (Tsikoudakis, p.
1). In its decision to relieve Castillo of her duty, the restaurant’s management is reported to have said that its customers do not appreciate services from expectant women and that Castillo’s lay off would establish a precedent to other women in the organization that expectant women would be relieved of their duties or compelled to accept leaf without pay. The suit further notes that the branch’s policy against pregnancy has seen eight women lose their jobs from the branch.
This is however against legal provisions that, according to an EEOC representative, provides for a woman’s right to her employment during the entire period of her pregnancy. The representative further explains that an employer has no authority to dictate to a pregnant woman when to take a pregnancy leave, even if such a position is to the woman’s best interest. The claim seeks damages (Tsikoudakis, p. 1). Analysis The case falls under legal provisions for pregnancy discrimination that protects a pregnant woman from any form of unfair treatment that is based on her condition.
According to the pregnancy discrimination act, for example, an employer is not supposed to use a woman’s pregnancy as a determinant for evaluating the woman’s capacity to perform her duties at work. Further, pregnant women have the right to remain at work for as long as their condition can permit them to undertake their routine duties (National, p. 2). The case however identifies a breach of these two conditions. The employer’s decision to lay off Castillo was primarily based on her pregnancy state.
Further, she was able to work past the three months as was indicated by her doctor’s note. Her presentation of the note and a final suit also shows that she was willing to work past the three month that was allowed by the restaurant branch. Personal opinion The restaurant’s maternity policy is illegal because it contravenes legal provisions that protect pregnant women from discrimination on their pregnancy’s basis. The suit is therefore likely to succeed and the restaurant is most likely to be charged for compensatory damages.
Works cited National. Guide to pregnancy discrimination in employment. National Advocates for Pregnant women. N.d. Web. November 6, 2012.. Tsikoudakis, Mike. “EEOC sues Texas restaurant chain for pregnancy discrimination. ” Workforce. November 2, 2012. Web. November 6, 2012..