Worker Claims Employee Rights Violations because of Disability – Memorandum

TO: SafeliteAutoGlass/ CEO Tom Feeney

FROM: David Moyes, Lab Technician

SUBJECT: Worker Claims Employee Rights Violations because of Disability


The proposal of the Employment Non-discrimination Act by the American Congress has attracted the warm attention that most victims of sexual-oriented and gender-based discrimination wished dawned on their fellow citizens. This arises from the prevalent cases of reported discrimination in the workplace today, implying a modern society, yet to discharge the traditional perception of prejudice. It emerges amidst the outcry to free the workplace elements of discrimination, still locking out a crop of hardworking and qualified nationals from the labor market. This ascends from the assumption of discriminative cocoons that barely captures how well one performs in their job. In spite of such attempts, cases where the physically challenged are verbally or impliedly discriminated proves unending battle despite the knowledge of the existence of the American with Disability Act (Goren 511). In this light, this article attempts to outline the plight of individuals facing discrimination for their physical disabilities, the impact to the victim organizations and various ways to redress the inhumane act.

Summary of the Issue

The recent expansion strategy of Safelite AutoGlass, has left the operations of this organization expanded throughout the Florida and the Southern region. Despite the remarkable progress, the company reputation is drawn to a tainted reputation, following the claim of rights presented before the court. The victim cites wrongful termination after becoming a subject of several series of discrimination at the Carolina work site. The subject of the discrimination facing the man ensues from his disability. In addition, the man claims that the organization denied him a reasonable accommodation as three of his left hand fingers were missing.

The man presents a sympathizing account of the inhumane treatment experienced last year upon his recruitment. He further outlines that upon discovering that the gloves issued to him were ill-fitting owing to his condition, the organization never accommodated his special needs. To the contrary of his expectations upon passing the certification, the management allegedly demanded him to wear the ill-fitting gloves. Attempts to use his properly designed gloves pilled an additional attack line upon which the management demanded him to wear gloves approved only by the organization. Equally, his fitting gloves were alleged to pose immense problems in the case they are trapped in the machinery. Besides the unfair treatment experienced in his one-month stay, the plaintiff submissions reveal the discriminatory attacks mounted by supervisors. Moreover, they cited his physical condition as unsuitable to the nature of the undertaking. Finally, the man contends of his unfair dismissal despite committing a small and fixable mistake. In view of the above submissions, the plaint seeks to claim compensations and punitive damages accruing to $10 million.

Analysis of Issue

The primary effect of the claim placed by the employee is the huge dent it causes the organization in regards to its reputation. Although the organization may not realize the cost in the short term, alleged discrimination for an organization whose operations spread across the South and Florida region may gradually erode its growth potential. This emerges from the increased public awareness and opposition to the discriminating organizations. For instance, since the immediate society forms the direct market served by the organization, its products may encounter unreceptive market, citing the discriminative treatment to societal members living with disability (Weinkauf 6). This arises where the members of the society prioritize habitable organizations, thus a loss of the target market for its products.

The prevalence of various forms of discrimination in an organization is disastrous both from within and beyond. Initially, where the vice is engrained in the organization culture, it exposes the organization to workforce disunity where those demonstrating their support for the disabled employees will lead like-minded workers into a marginalization. Such a worksite yields corrosive intra-workforce competition and infightings that may derail the organization from attaining its fundamental objective (Weinkauf 8). Equally, the claim will reveal signs of discrimination that rival organizations may find as lines of weakness they will utilize to counter its expansion agenda. In view of this, the claim therefore sets the company on a losing end as other companies may utilize the accusations to win the public attention given the increased awareness and readiness to end discrimination. As a result, the claim sets the organization of losing current and prospective clients who seek to identify positively with non-discriminative organizations.

Placing the submission before a court of law sets a precedence upon which other affected employees may assume, citing the courage of the affected employee. Considering that other affected employees who at one point became the subject of discriminatory conduct of the supervisors, may derive confidence from this claim. Although such actions remain unimaginable, the organization cannot rule out a revolution from the disgruntled employees. This may yield mounting pressure that easily may transpire to lost markets, declining supply of raw materials and mass resignation of the employees. This has the potential to condemn the organization at stained and unreceptive business environment. The award of multiple damages awarded by the court from the successive claims may form a large cash outflow, thus a delay of capital projects owing to the drained retained earnings.

Workplace discrimination of the some parties gradually harms the recruitment process, thus leaving an inefficient team to carry the development agenda of the company forward. In particular, discriminating individuals owing to their physical makeup, locks out diversity of ideas. This reveals in the plaintiff case where despite the disability he passed the certification stage. This implies that discrimination of existing employees, adversely affect their recruitment process. It arises from the fact that dissatisfied employees will discourage other qualified individuals from seeking employment in the offending environment.

The loss attributed to employment discrimination translates to huge contributions to the turnover costs. This arises from the costs the organization spends in replacing the departing employees besides, the loss of trained and expertise from employees who cannot tolerate further discriminatory treatment. This will transpire to multiple losses for the organization. For example, an organization registering mass resignation may find its operations and productions limited to the available employees. Such an organization may gradually lose on the major contracts demanding uninterrupted delivery cycles. Similarly, this may affect its revenue generation cycle, thus registering thin net earnings.

Finally, individuals faced with discrimination at their pace of work are understandably less satisfied in their jobs. This may present a looming challenge for Individuals experiencing non-physical disabilities as the stereotype embed in the organizational culture. This situation generates a harmful environment for such individuals in the long run, as it gradually affects their already poor health. With contemporary reports indicating the increased incidence of children with disability, a discriminatory organization culture built around stereotypes will overly lock out the organization from the reach of these generations as they attain adulthood (Weinkauf 3). This arises from the preference to identify both socially and economically with organizations that recognize and accord equal rights to each individual.


In view of the aforementioned effects affecting producers, consumers and employees alike, the organization should initiate a supportive platform to eliminate discrimination at worksites. Firstly, fostering communication amongst all employees would offer the simplest approach to sustain open and hospitable communications. Here, conducting open sessions amongst the employees will ensure every party obtains a fair hearing from the management. Organizing the dialogues in a routine manner enables the individuals realize and attach value to one another that looks beyond the disabilities.

Secondly, conducting diversity training sessions to the organization people will enable them to learn to appreciate the existence of all parties, both with physical and non-physical disabilities. At this point, the diversity sessions will aim to build social inclusion platforms where all parties showcase their talents and the collective contributions to the group. This will brew togetherness as as the sessions would generate inclusion essential to overcome discrimination and enable the full participation of the disabled as integral members of the organization.

Additionally,providing corporate support through support of public activities meant to assist other members with similar conditions, established a lasting relationship that other employees may replicate in the organization. On the other hand, supporting public awareness forums for people to recognize such members as equal beings would demonstrate the commitment of the organization to lead by example. This will create a stronger social bond among the employees, who would then bury previous misconceptions and embrace receptive platforms to other members. This will generate a platform to work for a united to organizational force binding the human race beyond the employment zones.

Lastly, according management support will allow the affected members attain a receptive environment upon which they can demonstrate their individual abilities. For instance, facilitating their sponsorship to events where they learn how to embrace the programs initiated by the federal and state government will yield morale in the organization. The top management should enforce an admissible culture cognizing diversity down the administrative levels. This will take the forms of obtaining their representation in decisions making committees. This will ensure that their immediate requirements are met such as special uniforms and infrastructure that permits normal living irrespective of their physical conditions.


  • Goren, William D. Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chicago: ABA GP/Solo, 2006.
  • Weinkauf, Tim. “Employer Attitudes and the Employment of People with Disabilities: An Exploratory Study Using the Ambivalence Amplification Theory.” (2010).
Before you go, you are invited to support a noble cause on IndieGoGo:
HTML Snippets Powered By :