Medical Information By Cronan To Net example essay topic

Paul Cronan Case Analysis By: Rebecca FigoneDate March 9, 2005 I. Legal Analysis, Issue 1 Issue: Does party bringing suit (Plaintiff - Paul Cronan) qualify under the ADA for disability? Rule: In Review of ADA and the principles set forth at that time, there are several to consider here. A disability is described as follows:" For purposes of nondiscrimination laws (e.g. the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act), a person with a disability is generally defined as someone who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more 'major life activities,' (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. Have a severe disability (or combination of disabilities) that has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months or result in death, and which prevents working at a 'substantial gainful activity' level. State vocational rehabilitation (VR) offices will find a person with a disability to be eligible for VR services if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes or results in a 'substantial impediment' to employment for the applicant. Some of these definitions include words or phrases that have been the subject of lawsuits, as individuals, agencies, and courts try to clarify the terms used in some of these definitions of disability.

If you want to find out if a particular disability or condition gives you certain rights, contact the federal or state agency To be found disabled for purposes of Social Security disability benefits, individuals must that enforces the law in question. If you want to find out if you qualify for a particular program or service, contact the federal or state agency that administers the program to find out the specifics of the disability definition they use". This information is readily available on the World Wide Web at the following link: web Does the disease of AIDS / ARC/HIV qualify as a disabling condition under the ADA requirements? Is this disease and the effects it has on capacity for life activities a disability? Yes, now, since 1998, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Brandon vs. Abbott, the disease of HIV / AIDS does indeed qualify as a disability.

However, this is legislation to late for Paul Cronan. Conclusion of Researcher: In relative conclusion, Cronan does indeed have a condition that meets the requirements set forth by the ADA for a disability. This information is readily available on the World Wide Web at the following location web Legal Analysis, Issue 2 Issue: Is New England Telephone guilty of discrimination against Paul Cronan strictly because he has a disease that is disabling called HIV / AIDS? Rule: "The ADA prohibits discrimination in all employment practices, including job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It applies to recruitment, advertising, tenure, layoff, leave, fringe benefits, and all other employment-related activities". This information is readily available on the World Wide Web at the following location web relation to the situation, the following data is also pertinent: "Employment discrimination is prohibited against 'qualified individuals with disabilities.

' This includes applicants for employment and employees. An individual is considered to have a 'disability' if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability also are protected. The first part of the definition makes clear that the ADA applies to persons who have impairments and that these must substantially limit major life activities such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working. An individual with epilepsy, paralysis, HIV infection, AIDS, a substantial hearing or visual impairment, mental retardation, or a specific learning disability is covered, but an individual with a minor, non chronic condition of short duration, such as a sprain, broken limb, or the flu, generally would not be covered.

The second part of the definition protecting individuals with a record of a disability would cover, for example, a person who has recovered from cancer or mental illness. The third part of the definition protects individuals who are regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment, even though they may not have such an impairment. For example, this provision would protect a qualified individual with a severe facial disfigurement from being denied employment because an employer feared the 'negative reactions' of customers or co-workers."Discriminate" can be characterized by the following information: "b) Construction. -- As used in subsection (a), the term 'discriminate " includes -- (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 disability to the discrimination prohibited by this title (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs); (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration -- (A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or (B) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control; (4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association; (5) (A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or (B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant; (6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and (7) failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure)". This information is readily available on the World Wide Web at the following location: web term 'qualified' refers to individuals who are capable of doing the essential functions of the job.

The term 'essential functions' means, for instance, that a firefighter must be able to carry heavy loads but does not need typing skills. A secretary, however, does not have to carry heavy loads but must be able to type. The term 'reasonable accommodation' usually involves meeting an individual's needs through access, work schedule or adaptation of facilities. While employers are legally required to make accommodations to overcome barriers that restrict the disabled, they are NOT mandated to make these 'reasonable accommodations' if they would cause undue hardship to the company. The term 'undue hardship' applies to any accommodation that is excessively costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive. The courts review what actually constitutes a hardship on a case-by-case basis.

This information is readily available on the World Wide Web at the following location: web Disabled%20 Persons / filename /employment law 1 459 To give more meaning to vague and general terms, employers can now turn to both the state and federal courts, which have, in the past two years, issued decisions that are a source for practical advice and guidance. These case decisions, moreover, act not only as a guide but also demonstrate a pro-employer trend, as long as the employer has acted with concern for the employee. The courts have already been faced with many opportunities to decide what constitutes a reasonable accommodation and, generally, have been supportive of the employers' good faith efforts. In many instances, the employers have even been able to avoid trial by successful moving for summary judgment. (A motion for summary judgment is made at the end of the discovery period, after the parties have engaged in depositions, interrogatories, and document production.) Summary judgment is granted by courts only when the material facts are not in dispute, and the employer is entitled to win 'as a matter of law.

' The courts' willingness to grant summary judgment motions is a good sign for employers. These rulings give employers clear guidelines as to the extent of their responsibilities under the ADA and what constitutes acceptable compliance with the ADA's requirements. The above data is also take from the World Wide Web from the following location: web Disabled%20 Persons / filename /employment law 1 459 In Conclusion, Based on the Analysis of the facts and legalities, New England Telephone did try to make reasonable accommodations for Paul Cronan. While reviewing the case, it was clear that there had been many concessions on the part of New England Telephone for Paul Cronan.

According to the reasonable accommodations rule, this company only failed Paul Cronan in this arena, because Mr. Cronan failed himself in this arena. If Mr. Cronan had asked for a reassignment, then the situation would have changed. It is not my personal belief that New England Telephone the entity discriminated against Mr. Cronan.. Legal Analysis, Issue 3 Issue: Were Mr. Cronan's rights violated when his medical information was disclosed to personnel in the New England Telephone Company? It is pertinent to understand that Mr. Cronan did not confide with anyone in the company the nature of his illness. Rule: It is imperative and a requirement that businesses keep medical and personnel records separated.

According the ADA, there are only a few people internal to a company that have the legal right to review medical information on employees. These people are limited to Supervisors, Managers, in the capacity of work restriction information or reasonable accommodation. First Aid and Internal Safety personnel would have access in the event that one of the personnel required tre a tent immediately. Government officials who may investigate ADA compliance would have access to said records.

Analysis: According to the reading of the case, Mr. Cronan only discussed his medical condition with one party. He disclosed the information only when asked about the nature of the condition he was seeing a physician about. The conversation was agreed by verbal contract that the information would go no further than the two parties. It is apparent from the reading that this confidence was broken, due to the telling of immediate supervisors and other internal parties to NET.

There was never written or verbal permission give to disclose medical information by Cronan to NET. This situation warrants that there is a problem. Failure on the part of NET to keep the medical information private is indicative to the violation of Cronan's privacy rights. Conclusion: According to the ADA, Cronan's rights were violated in this instance.

This act lead to other behavior on the part of employees of NET, that was unacceptable, life-threatening and hostile. This instilled fear in the mind and heart of Paul Cronan about his own safety if he returned to the workplace. IV. Legal Analysis, Issue 4 Issue: NET required Mr. Cronan to see a company physician, in order to discover the exact nature of his illness.

Is this a violation of his rights or the rules set forth by ADA? Rule: c) Medical Examinations and Inquiries. -- (1) In general. -- The prohibition against discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations and inquiries. (2) P reemployment. -- (A) Prohibited examination or inquiry.

-- Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability. (B) Acceptable inquiry. -- A covered entity may make into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions. (3) Employment entrance examination. -- A covered entity may require a medical examination after an offer of employment has been made to a job applicant and prior to the commencement of the employment duties of such applicant, and may condition an offer of employment on the results of such examination, if -- (A) all entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of disability; (B) information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record, except that -- (i) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations; (ii) first aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment; and ( ) government officials investigating compliance with this Act shall be provided relevant information on request; and (C) the results of such examination are used only in accordance with this title. (4) Examination and inquiry.

-- (A) Prohibited examinations and inquiries. -- A covered entity shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. (B) Acceptable examinations and inquiries. -- A covered entity may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that work site. A covered entity may make inquiries intothe ability of an employee to perform job-related functions. (C) Requirement.

-- Information obtained under subparagraph (B) regarding the medical condition or history of any employee are subject to the requirements of subparagraph's (B) and (C) of paragraph (3). This information is readily available on the World Wide Web at the following location: web After disclosure in confidence of his medical condition, there was a request that Mr. Cronan see the NET doctor within 24 hours of the disclosure of his illness. There were no other personnel required to see the Company doctor, that were in the same type of position as Mr. Cronan. The medical exam was due to the disclosure of the illness, and there was nothing in Mr. Cronan's job requirement that would have warranted to physician visit.

At the time this visit was required of Mr. Cronan, nothing prohibited Mr. Cronan from fulfilling his job requirement. Conclusion: It is apparent that Mr. Cronan was indeed negatively affected due to this requirement placed on him by NET. NET violated the ADA requirements by subjecting Mr. Cronan to medical company doctor review. Due to the fact that there were no other employees in the same type of job as Mr. Cronan, who were asked to see the Company Physician, the visit requirement is directly violating Mr. Cronan's rights. V. Legal Analysis, Issue 5 Issue: Is NET liable under Title VII of the Sexual Harassment Code due to the employee reaction internally due to the disclosure of Mr. Cronan's illness? Is NET liable to allowing the internal hostility and reactivity to take place on company property?

Rule: Sexual Harassment Defined Sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual advance or conduct on the job that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Any conduct of a sexual nature that makes an employee uncomfortable has the potential to be sexual harassment. Given such a broad definition, it is not surprising that sexual harassment comes in many forms. The following are all examples of sexual harassment: . A supervisor implies to an employee that the employee must sleep with him to keep a job... A sales clerk makes demeaning comments about female customers to his co-workers...

An office manager in a law firm is made uncomfortable by lawyers who regularly tell sexually explicit jokes... A cashier at a store pinches and fondles a co-worker against the co-worker's will... A secretary's co-workers belittle her and refer to her by sexist or demeaning terms... Several employees post sexually-explicit jokes on an office intranet bulletin board...

An employee sends emails to co-workers that contain sexually explicit language and jokes. The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, manager or co-worker. The harasser can even be a non-employee, if the person is on the premises with permission (for example, a customer or a vendor). The above information is available at the following two location on the World Wide Web: web VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover: . Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The 'hostile environment's tankard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.) The following information is available on the World Wide Web at the following location: web practices. html Analysis: According to the case review, Mr. Cronan had to deal with hearing there was unacceptable behavior occurring at NET.

There was a great deal of sexually explicit graffiti in the bathrooms in direct relation to Mr. Cronan. According to the behavior and the employees who were discussing lynching Mr. Cronan, Mr. Cronan was fearful to return to his place of employment. The type of situation that Mr. Cronan was subjected to was a failure in my opinion, on the part of his company in many respects. There was a failure of policy establishment to protect employees from such harassment and fear on the job. It is my belief that NET is responsible for what occurs on the premises of NET. Since the Graffiti existed internal to the entity, the company should, in my opinion be held liable for the intimidation and hostility relative to Mr. Cronan.

Conclusion: Since New England Telephone failed to recognize a problem in relation to Mr. Cronan and his welfare, especially safety-related, It is my personnel belief that NET should be held liable in regards to Mr. Cronan and the sexual harassment he received from his fellow peers on the job. ETHICAL ANALYSIS Ethics pertains to many levels of reaction and action, of all types. Usually it is pertinent to fundamental and practical decision making. It usually deals with high values and morals and is more often than not the way we as humans judge what it is right and wrong. Usually ethics are in some way, shape, or form related to culture, community, religious practices, and social economic status. Ethics Issue 1: Some of the main issues that need to be addressed here are the privacy issue, medical records, discrimination, and occupational safety or the safety internal in relation to other employees.

For some reason unknown, NET did not comply to its own legalities set forth in its company policy. Mr. Cronan's immediate supervisor violated company policy by directly questioning Mr. Cronan about the exact nature of his illness, and then he violated Mr. Cronan's right to privacy when he shared the information with other employees. Personal privacy issues abound in the corporate world fairly frequently. It is imperative that a company abides by the laws set forth by our nation. Fear for safety due to failure to keep company policy, is atrocious. Paul feared return to work, and even though the company was aware of what was occurring, they failed to make Paul feel safe.

To me, this wreaks of unethical behavior. The way the company addressed the sterility issue of Paul's workstation was unacceptable, and it did not abide by what should be done in my own mind to keep knowledge of issues under control. It was an unknown, and I am sure with the huge fear surrounding the issue in the 80's, due to lack of information, was the driving force of the entity's choice to sterilize the workstation. Was it necessary? No, but at the time, I am sure that was not realized. We can assume that the leak of private information came from the upper supervisor management with the information about Mr. Cronan.

We can assume that NET could have and should have seen the internal hostile environment that existed in their company against people with HIV / AIDs, and gays in general. It is believed that both of these situations could have been handled differently. NET was bound by the privacy law, and without Mr. Cronan's permission, disclosure should never have occurred. It is my belief as well, that the hostile environment that was occurring was in direct relation to the violated privacy of Mr. Cronan. NET internal management it is believed could see for itself the exact nature of the harassment and fear problem.

NET failed to recognize or react to either situation. It is imperative to understand that NET was liable for its employees but the employees, as individuals were also liable for their actions. NET lacked the system controls necessary to keep the company liability to a minimum on this issue. Usually with failures such as these, the system internal controls are this company is lacking the most. Ethical behavior among management is key to ethical behavior among employees. Overall Conclusions: After review of the legal and ethical implications associated with the Paul Cronan Case, we need to understand that the laws in place today to protect someone in Mr. Cronan's situation were not in place at the time of incident.

AIDS / HIV were not considered a disability until many years after this occurred. The Company NET did indeed violate the employee's rights. NET compromised Mr. Cronan, both ethically and legally. Mr. Cronan was within his rights to file suit against NET.