Theposition I take in this question is that Bates should have the rightof retaining her position as a loan officer. According to theposition that the bank is in has been operating with one less loanofficer since Bates took the leave and there is one more worker goingfor a maternity leave. Because of this position that the bank isfacing, there is a need of hiring a new employee, but there is notenough case that the bank can represent in fully discharging Bates.In fact there are other measures that the bank can apply rather thanfully discharging Bates from the loan officer position for instance,the bank can opt to hire another loan officer temporarily to replaceBates until, when she would fully recover ready to discharge herresponsibility as a loan officer.
Oneof the reasons why Bates has the right of retaining her position inthe bank as a loan officer is because she was not in a capacity ofreporting back to work. This is indicated by her therapist giving areport that Bates would capable of working or resuming work by theend of the month of November. The bank wanted Bates to return back towork before this time that her therapist had indicated. On the otherhand, it was not Bates’ desire not to return to work, she had tosee her physician in order to know whether she was fit to return toher responsibility. It is indicated that she made an attempt to bookan appointment with her physician, which she succeeded to book onNovember 15th.This implies that the bank could have waited the physician’s reportin order to determine whether Bates was safe to return back to herresponsibilities as a loan officer.
Besides,Bates has the right of retaining her position as a loan officer sinceshe is protected under the Family and Medical Law Act, Bates wasentitled to go for a leave because of her condition. According to theAct, Bates was entitled for a leave because she had a serious healthcondition which made her unable to perform the critical functions ofher job (Ossipet al, 2006). This implies that the bank should have protected herwithout discharging her until she was in a capacity of returning backto her responsibility of a loan officer.
Onthe other hand, Bates had the right of retaining her position as aloan officer because she was protected by the Americans withDisabilities Act. According to this Act, no employee should facediscrimination because of her physical or mental situation (Goren,2006). After her involvement in a serious car accident, Bates becameaffected mentally and physically since she had a traumatic braininjury, outbursts of anger and loss of memory function. This impliesthat Bates was not fit to execute her responsibilities as a loanofficer and so the bank should not have discharged her sincedischarging her because of her mental and physical condition showsdiscrimination, which should not be the case under the Americans withDisabilities Act.
Therefore,although according to the interests of the bank, there was a need tohire another employee since the bank was likely to face a deficit inthe workforce because one of its workers was going for a maternityleave discharging Bates was not the right thing since it representeddiscrimination in society.
Goren,W. D. (2006). Understandingthe Americans with Disabilities Act.Chicago, Ill: ABA GP/Solo.
Ossip,M. J., Hale, R. M., Coleman, G. V., Talwani, I., & American BarAssociation. (2006). TheFamily and Medical Leave Act.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.