Samson v Federal

Samson v Federal

The Determining Factors That Led To This Conclusion.

The court concluded that test-driving empty trucks did not constitute transporting passengers or property across states (Walsh, 2015). Therefore, FedEx was not obliged under FMCR requirements to require Samson to obtain a DOT medical certification as part of his job qualification because the Technical position only included test-driving vehicles. One of the factors that led to the conclusion is the roles and responsibilities of a technician as specified in the job advertisement that FedEx used to advertise for the vacant position. The job description informs applicants what the organization expects them to do after being hired (Baker, 2016). FedEx’s job description did not inform applicants applying for the technician position that they would be required to drive the company’s trucks across different states. Samson applied for the job because his disability could not affect his ability to complete the assigned tasks outlined in the job description.

Do you need help with your assignment? Get in touch with us.

The second factor that led to the conclusion is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations requirements on when to issue a DOT medical examination to employees driving commercial vehicles that transport passengers or property in interstate commerce. In the current case, given that Samson’s job did not include driving trucks across different states to transport passengers and property, the reasonable accommodations that could have been provided for his disability would be hiring him and only allowing him to test-drive the trucks within the company’s premises or sit at the passenger’s seat during test drives outside the company’s premises to access the truck’s functionality and determine whether maintenance issues have been resolved based on the drivers’ feedback.

How does the ruling, in this case, impact\ my practice as a human resources manager?

According to Zschirnt (2016), discrimination in the hiring process is a common issue in many organizations. Human resource managers may discriminate against job candidates who apply for a job knowingly or unknowingly based on the reasons they give for rejection (Bruton, 2015). In this case, the ruling impacts my practices as a Human Resource Manager by enlightening me on the importance of providing all job-related information in a job description. If FedEx had included interstate driving among the roles and responsibilities of a technician, then there would be discrimination charges because Samson’s disability prohibits him from driving commercial vehicles across states. The ruling also impacts my practice in policy formulation on what to consider when hiring employees and the acceptable grounds for rejection based on any laws or regulations that require specific checks during hiring, such as medical examinations. As a Human Resource Manager, I must ensure that candidates are rejected for a fair and valid reason.

References

Baker, T. (2016). The harmful impact of the job description on HRM. The End of the Job Description, 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-58146-4_3

Bruton, S. V. (2015). Looks-based hiring and wrongful discrimination. Business and Society Review, 120(4), 607-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12076

Walsh, D. J. (2015). Reasonably Accommodating Disability and Religion. In Employment law for human resource practice. Cengage Learning.

Zschirnt, E. (2016). Measuring hiring discrimination: a history of Field experiments in discrimination research. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2780398

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

This week’s assignment forum focuses on the legal definition of providing reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities and those with religious needs. This is the third assignment forum related to your course project.

Your Unit 3 assignment forum is based on the Samson v. Federal case study in Chapter 9 of your textbook. The case involved a claim of disability discrimination. At issue was the legality of a medical examination requirement for vehicle mechanic candidates imposed by FedEx. The district court granted summary judgment for FedEx. This case study is the appeal to that court ruling. You will explore the topic of reasonable accommodations and evaluate the importance of this ruling to human resources practice and your role as a human resources practitioner.

Instructions:

 As the Human Resource Manager, you must evaluate your job descriptions for reasonable accommodation requirements.

Read the Samson v. Federal case study in Chapter 9 of your textbook. Based on your review of the case study, address the following:

1. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could not find test-driving essential to this job. Discuss the determining factors that led to this conclusion. In responding to this topic, be sure to address any reasonable accommodations that could have been provided for such a
2. Evaluate how the ruling in this case (factors in this case) impacts your practice as a Human Resources
3. Review your submission to the assignment forum and at least one classmate’s posting classmates. Use the RISE model of peer feedback to provide your classmates with constructive feedback that they may consider when finalizing this portion of the project later in the

In crafting your responses to these questions, support your statements with evidence from the text, the Samson case study, and additional readings in the unit.