Equal Pay Act: Equality In The Workplace

Also, equality is very important in the workplace. It is common in businesses for employers to treat their employees unequal (Rosen, n.d.). If a male and a female is doing the same job, the male should not be paid a higher salary. Also, everyone should have equal opportunities and shouldn’t be denied a promotion or training because of discriminatory reasons. The enactment of the Equal Pay Act 1963 was for the purpose of ensuring that all employees are treated fairly at all stages of the employment process. It requires employers to pay men and women equally for doing substantially the same work, unless differences in pay are based on merit, quantity, or quality of production, or any other factor other than sex (Reference for Business, n.d.).

A business can’t fire an employee who is disabled – People with disabilities are protected by the law and employers will be penalized if such an employee is dismissed because of this reason. The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 prohibits employment discrimination against qualified applicants or employees with a physical or mental disability (Reference for Business, n.d.). Disabled persons most often assume that they can’t be fired because of their disability. It is common for employers to be hesitant on firing these employees because of the fear of litigation even if they have not acted unlawfully. But this doesn’t mean that an employer CANNOT fire or discipline that employee (Kielich, 2015). However, if the business has a reduction in force or reorganization/restructuring, the laws will not protect the individual (Levitt, 2014). In some cases, disabled persons may be fired for frustration because they will not be useful to the business because productivity may be hindered (Levitt, 2014). In the case of Fraser v. UBS, Ms. Fraser had become ill and was declared ‘disabled’ after 20.5 years of service to the company (Fitzgibbon, 2012). After the diagnosis, she was off and on to work for a while, receiving short-term disability benefits, by which time, her illness had grown. When this happened, she applied for long term disability benefits and this was granted. After this had expired after two years, Ms. Fraser failed to advise UBS of any change in her medical prognosis and was terminated because of frustration. Because she had not returned to work, her employment contract became impossible to perform. As a result, the Court ruled in favour of UBS and said that the contract had become frustrated and UBS was under no obligation to provide notice or pay in lieu of notice (Fitzgibbon,