Fully repartee the topics associated astern a while each circumstance beneath and upload your completed instrument in the dropbox beneath.Thither are 6 term, astern a while 10 topics propagate disordinary them. Each topic is excellence 10 points for a entirety of 100 points. Secnario: You are a paraconstitutional astern a while the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. Your boss counsel, Sharon Ripley, has asked you do repartee some topics environing some HR constitutional issues that bear arisen.  Case 1 The foremost circumstance involves Joe Stromboli.  Joe is a grant driver for Weyland, and astern an property, Joe became 100% rumbling in twain ears. The teachers were weak to repay any of Joe’s hearing. Joe’s superintendent, Stephanie, believes that message astern a while employees and the recipients of the deliveries is an immanent employment of the job. Additionally, Joe wants to be serviceservicetelling to share in the team discourses. Joe’s superintendent was unsafe whether to avail, so she referred the circumstance to the Weyland-Wutani medical staff. The medical employee took one appear at Joe and said no accommodation is feasible. When asked why, the teacher said “Joe’s rumbling.” Joe was terminated, and he has now filed a aid for insufficiency to reasonably determine.   The job patronymic for a Weyland-Yutani grant driver states that the employee must be serviceservicetelling to binder a Commercial driver’s permit. Additionally, grant drivers are expected to select token from different employees. This is ordinarily enacted via artisan radio. However, Joe has a cell phone capservicetelling of receiving citation messages and emails that could sanction him to select token. Furthermore, Joe has proffered to heave a pen and brochure environing so that message could to-boot be enacted this way. Joe’s rumblingness had no issue on bindering his CDL, and the strong expects it would bring-environing these accommodations fairly cheaply.  Can Joe settle a privilege for insufficiency to reasonably determine incapacity? Be safe to schedule the elements of the privilege and to demonstration how you reached your misentry. What mistakes—if any—were made? How can these be corrected in the forthcoming?  Case 2 The promote circumstance involves Johnson. Johnson is a pavement supervisor in the establish. 55% of the date he is occupied astern a while humdrum evolution. However, 45% of the date he is occupied astern a while supervising his zone, preparing schedules, and negotiation astern a while specialnel disputes. If thither is a whole, he is legitimate for mobilizing his zone to instruct even-handed. He to-boot spends dates discourse astern a while his superiors in manage to stipulate reports on conqueringness of employees and on any other wholes that bear arisen. For this, he holds 10% past currency than his subordinates. He had prior been classified as an FSLA irresponsible employee. Now, he is challenging that reputation. Although Weyland has a accurate no-overdate prudence, Johnson has been demonstrationing up to is-sue existing to drain a cup of coffee, fume a cigarette, bring-environing safe schedules are handy, doors are unlocked, and preparing is-suestations for the day afront. He typically arrives an hour existing to enact these tasks. Weyland knew that Johnson was hence in existing, and is-sueing 45 hours a week.  Is Johnson an irresponsible employee?  Be safe to schedule and sift-canvass the applicservicetelling constitutional standards as well-mannered-mannered as some of the factors the seek conquer deduce. Was Johnson’s pre-transfer is-sue precursive? Was Johnson’s is-sue de minimis? Does Weyland’s prudence balance balancedate balance they don’t bear to pay? Case 3 Weyland wishes to deviate their pension scheme. The ordinary scheme sanctions employees to either hold $500 a month or $100,000 upfront upon privacy. Twain schemes to-boot prproffer a annual ticket to the assemblage refuge cruise. Seeking to incentives commonalty to recognize $500 a month, Weyland wishes to tie the ticket to employees receiving $500 a month merely to use retroactively to $100,000 slice sum scheme.  Does this infringe ERISA?  Why or why not? Case 4 Weyland became informed that a conjunction organizing belligerence was beneathway in one of its establishs. A conjunction bigot was determined in to a discourse astern a while establish superintendents. At the end of the discourse, when the employee asked what he was reputed to do if others insufficiencyed to colloquy astern a while him environing conjunctionizing, he was told “[Y]ou’re to impartial is-sue and not colloquy environing the Union.” Astern conjunction bigots columned representative on assemblage bulletin boards, the flyers were frequently-again-and-again selectn down. The assemblage then issued a prudence requiring all employees to achieve approbation antecedently placing any representative on the boards. Subsequently, the assemblage’s exercitation was to nonsense to column representative of any husk from employees. A few months posterior, various off-duty employees attempted to portio proconjunction flyers in the assemblage parking lot but were bungped by assemblage officials. They were warned that they were in transposition of assemblage prudence. Environing the identical date, employees ignoringed out conjunction buttons in the establish and left some of them close a date clock for other employees to pluck up. When assemblage officials well-informed of this breath, they instantly determined a discourse and warned one conjunction propagator that “I don’t insufficiency to seize you departure [buttons] out, Okay, I don’t insufficiency to see them laying environing. You can ignoring them out when you’re without, on your own date, but when you’re hither is-sueing, you, you, want to be is-sueing.” The officials said that this exercise was selectn to preserve the establish unreserved of clutter and nonsense. Has Weyland occupied in dishonest drudge exercitations in its retort to the conjunction organizing breath? Case 5 At the end of her transfer, a 19 year old salesspecial at Weyland was topiced by two treasury pledge directors.  She was topiced in a weak capacity for three hours.  One of the pledge directors sat astern her on the just plan whither she could not see him (she was prejudiced in the just eye).  She was asked to type a instrument stating that she was gratuitously abjuration her “rights,” including the just to last dormant.  When she asked for elevate explication of the instrument antecedently she typeed it, she was told that it “doesn’t balance anything” true you’ve “performed celebrity wickedness.” A pledge director threatened to ole the police and bear her jailed true she typeed a profession.  She was told that the creed could last all tenebrosity and that if she typeed a profession she could probably preserve her job. Beneath these term she typeed.  She was fired two days posterior. The employee privileges that she is ruffled and decision it increasingly perplexing to snooze. Does the sales special bear a privilege for contemplated nuisance of tender disturb? Case 6 A womanly crane operator was told it was Weyland prudence that crane operators urinate balance the plan of their cranes rather than bung is-sue to select bathcapacity breaks. Management impartialified the prudence by speech that thither was a shortage of staff and that it was expedient for the cranes to produce uninterruptedly in that area of the establish. Shifts for crane operators were typically twelve hours. Thither was attraction that the identical prudence was applied to manful crane operators and that they routinely urinated balance the plan or end of their cranes in lieu of bathcapacity breaks. Does the womanly crane operator bear a operative sex discernment privilege beneath ill-matched contact? What environing ill-matched composition?