Discrimination Suit Against Net O Paul Cronan example essay topic

Paul Cronan and New England Telephone Company Case Analysis Legal Case Analysis Facts: o Paul Cronan was a long-term New England Telephone Company (NET) employee (1973-1986), assigned at South Boston. o Paul was diagnosed with AIDS Related Complex (ARC) in 1985. o Paul informed his supervisor about ARC when asked about his third request to leave work for a medical appointment (1985). o Paul had a poor attendance history. His tardiness and medical appointments concerned his supervision. o Paul was granted NET sickness benefits in June 1985. o Disparaging comments about Paul and AIDS were observed in NET restrooms (summer 1985). o Paul obtained medical permission to return to work with NET, but his requests for transfer way from the South Boston dispatch center were not processed by his new supervisor (August 1885). o NET issues new AIDS policy (September 1985). o Paul is hospitalized (September 1985), and receives a memo from NET offering to return him to his previous position with reasonable accommodation for limitations. o Paul files suit against NET for "privacy law violations" and "discrimination" using Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (December 1985). o NET tried to move the case to Federal court and failed (January 1986). The court determined that neither federal law nor union contracts preempted Massachusetts state laws on discrimination and privacy. o NET informs Paul his illness benefits have run out and place him on long-term disability (June 1986). o Paul and NET settle out of court, including allowing Paul to return to work at Needham facility (October 1886). o AIDS awareness training provided to NET personnel at Needham by medical AIDS specialists before Paul comes back to work (October 1986). o On Paul's first day back at NET Needham, he finds a hostile work environment and IBEW Local 2222 workers file a grievance over safety concerns related to exposure to AIDS (October 1986). o On Paul's second day back to work, 29 of 39 employees refused to enter the NET Needham facility and walked off the job. Several of these employees made statements regarding their fear AIDS and discomfort around Cronan (October 1986). Critical Legal Issues: o Was Paul Cronan discriminated against on the basis of a handicap, AIDS? o Was AIDS / ARC a handicap? o Was Paul's right to privacy violated when supervision / management informed others of his condition? o Did NET officials deliberately coerce Paul not to return to work?

Did they create a climate of suspicion and hostility toward Paul that made it impossible for him to return to work? Legal Rules: o Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (Title VII) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation. o The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by Federal agencies, in programs receiving Federal financial assistance, in Federal employment, and in the employment practices of Federal contractors. The standards for determining employment discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act are the same as those used in title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 503 requires affirmative action and prohibits employment discrimination by Federal government contractors and subcontractors with contracts of more than $10,000.

Section 503 regulations apply to State and local government entities which have contracts with the Federal government if the State or local government entity participates in work on or under the contract or subcontract. Unlike coverage of private sector employers, the government entity but not the government as a whole becomes subject to Section 503 and its regulations when it enters into the contract. Section 504 and regulations implementing the Act also prohibit discrimination in employment against qualified individuals with a disability. Like the ADA, a qualified individual with a disability is a person who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment which "substantially limits" one or more major life activities, (2) has a record of such impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. Covered Federal contractors and subcontractors are required to make reasonable accommodations to the physical or mental limitations of qualified individuals with disabilities. The conduct of NET falls under this Act due to the contractual relationship between NET and the Federal government.

Employers are also required to take all necessary actions to ensure that no one attempts to intimidate or discriminate against an individual for filing a complaint or participating in a proceeding under Section 503. Observations: o Paul Cronan missed work for months at a time before and after he was diagnosed with AIDS. o Paul hid his lifestyle from his employer and peers at NET. o NET attempted to do the right thing and allow Paul to return to work and accommodate his limitations, but were untimely in their response. o Paul and CLUB alleged that AIDS was a handicap and covered by statute, bringing a discrimination suit against NET. o Paul Cronan bypassed the process required by union contract to remedy his alleged mistreatment, and did not openly seek remedy with NET management. o This case was early in the AIDS legal issue and such was a 'precedent setting case" for future lawsuits by additional persons infected by AIDS. o The union (IBEW Local 2222) did not support a union member in an issue covered by contract. The union should have overtly worked with and for Paul in this case, including providing training on AIDS to fellow union members to provide them with the confidence necessary to support their union brother. Conclusions: o NET officials / management were unprepared for an occurrence of this kind (asleep at the wheel), and responded less than adequately. Notwithstanding, NET managers attempted to do the right thing but it appeared to be to little to late, in that they responded months later, probably at the request of legal representation, in order to have a documented attempt to return Mr. Cronan to work with reasonable accommodation. The outcome may have been different had the management team responded swiftly and appropriately once the disclosure was made, including employee training and establishing AIDS policy. o By disclosing (losing control of) the confidential information Paul Cronan shared with his supervisor, NET violated the "Privacy of Employee Records" Policy that NET had on record.

The policy specifically mentions personal attributes, medical history, and benefit treatment history. NET managers allowed all of this information to leak out to general employees. The "need to know" policy was violated. o Paul Cronan appeared to be intimidated by the feelings and opinions of his peers such that he did not overtly work with NET management to chart a course for his successful return to work. This combined with NET management's less than adequate response resulted in the lawsuit and loss on the sides of both parties. While shared responsibility for this failure existed, NET owned the majority share and should have lead the effort to educate the work force, accommodate Paul's limitations, and returned him to productive status with little financial and legal loss. o When the out of court settlement was reached, it was most likely the best result for both parties. NET limited it's liability to that reached by the agreement and avoided what could have been a lengthy legal battle and a potential significant financial loss.

Paul Cronan, on the other hand, had run out of money and needed the financial injection. In addition, he avoided a lengthy fight in court, potentially die ing before the case was resolved or losing the case entirely. o Ethical case Analysis Issues: o Did Paul Cronan, by concealing his lifestyle and ARC / AIDS condition in the manner described, contribute to the response he received from his peers and NET? o Did NET Managers have an obligation to prevent the spread of information about Paul Cronan's condition? o Did NET, in response to Paul's condition, feel they treated him with respect and dignity? Did they do enough soon enough to communicate that he was a valued employee? How much of the failure did NET own? o How much did tradition and culture of the day contribute to the apparent inadequate response by NET? o Did Paul feel like NET treated him with respect and dignity in their response?

Did Paul make enough of effort to communicate his needs and encourage the type of respectful treatment he desired from both NET and the Union? Did he own a part of the failure? o Was Paul's fear of his peers justifiable? How much did his fear prevent him from taking actions he was responsible for in resolving the issue? o Did NET do enough to educate their employees regarding AIDs and working with AIDS infected people, soon enough for it to make a difference in their response to working with a coworker with AIDS? o Should the Union have taken a more proactive part in the resolution of this issue. Did they have existing policy with regard to medical conditions and privacy issues, or did the Union want to distance them selves from Paul as well.

Evidence: o NET managers allowed the private medical information about Paul to get into the hands of general employee population. They should have known that information as controversial and sensitive as someone with AIDS could negatively impact both the identified employee and other employees as well. A little sensitivity on the part of NET managers early on in this case could have led to a different outcome. o The NET response in this case was minimal and late. Had NET maintained confidentiality and ensured that Mr. Cronan was treated with care and respect as soon as they became aware of his condition, Paul would not have felt threatened, and could have returned to work much sooner while maintaining his dignity and self worth. Additionally, if NET had also immediately brought in AIDS training and put into practice work place policies that informed employees and brought about a trusting environment, the employees would have been more prepared to cope with a coworker infected with AIDS. o NET should not have tolerated conduct from managers or general employees that violated company policy or resulted in an employee feeling threatened or intimidated. However, hind sight being what it is, the culture that tolerated this type of behavior was much more prevalent 20 years ago than it is now. o The fact that Paul Cronan hid his lifestyle and his medical condition from his employer as long as he did indicates that he was aware that his peers and others might openly disapprove.

The fear of being found out and the real or imagined humiliation of facing his peers appears to have contributed to Paul's seemingly half hearted attempt to communicate with NET and return to work. Paul owned some portion of the failure for this case and the lifestyle that contributed to his contracting AIDS, though the primary responsibility resided with NET. Assumptions: o The culture and tradition of the time contributed to the insensitivity of NET managers regarding the privacy of information of this nature. o The lack of clear knowledge by NET mangers, employees, and the general population, at that time about AIDS and how it spreads, contributed to Paul hiding the information, NET management response, and the fear and response of other employees. AIDS was virtually new in this country and most people at that time were fearful about it because little was known or understood. o NET, once jolted awake, attempted and intended to do right by Mr. Cronan. o Paul Cronin developed AIDS as a result of his lifestyle. o The Union failed to meet it's obligation to represent the interests of it's members. o Paul Cronin was not out to make a financial windfall, but wanted to return to some semblance of normal life with dignity and respect and support himself. Ethical Alternatives: o NET could have paid Paul a large sum of money to go away (the easy way out). o NET could have accommodated Paul immediately and used his services doing something that prevented or limited his contact with employees or other people. This may have been a breech of union contract.

Judgement and Rationale: o Once errors were made and the damage was done, NET was best served by taking the actions they did in settling out of court with Paul Cronan. This minimized the extent of financial loss, and prevented further tarnishing their corporate image. In this case it was NETs responsibility to do the right thing from the beginning. o NET would have lost the legal battle in court. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19732 clearly prohibits discrimination in employment against qualified individuals with a disability.

In this case the court would likely have determined that AIDS and the perception of AIDS qualified it as a disability.