Share
Explore BrainMass

Ethics and Discrimination in Human Resources Disabilities Law

With regard to the case, Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc. 8th Cir, (2007), I have some questions. I am looking for specific detail and possibly examples to other cases.

1) What must Chalfant establish to make his case under ADA?

2) Can he meet these requirements? How?

3) As punitive damages can be appropriate when the employer acts with malice or reckless indifference to an employee's protected rights, would punitive damages be appropriate in this case?

4) Why or why not?

Solution Preview

Question of Ethics and Discrimination

1) What must Chalfant establish to make his case under ADA?

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, to be protected by this legislation, one must
1) Have a disability which is defined by the ADA as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
2) A person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or
3) A person who is perceived by others as having such impairment.

So in order to apply this Act to his case, Chalfant will have to fit into one or more of these categories.

Introduction to the ADA. (2013) Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act. http://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm

To make his case, Chalfant would have to establish that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability.

This is defined as:
(1) Limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee;

(2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee with a ...

Solution Summary

In the case of Chalfant v Titan Distribution, it was found that Titan discriminated against Robert Wayne Chalfant on the basis of disability and/or age by erroneously scoring a qualifying test and by lying about deleting the position for which Chalfant was qualified. This exercise defines how the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to this case.

$2.19