Ms. Kayte Clark, the Vice President for Danskin Inc Case Study

Ms. Kayte Clark, the Vice professorship for Danskin Inc - Case Study ExampleHowever, she is legally blind and her disability issues seem to have grown in the company over the years since she could not be promoted to a higher cast by sexual morality of her blindness. To a greater extent, the ratiocination she makes can be regarded as a scapegoat to get loose of her since there is enough evidence to show that she is no longer liked in the company. As such(prenominal), this raise seeks to critically evaluate the law that applies federally under Age Discrimination in vocation effect (ADEA) as well as ERISA. The essay also seeks to outline the elements she must enkindle for a stellar(prenominal) facie case in each area in question. Ms. Clark is now 53 years which entails that she is protected by the ADEA which stipulates that employees over 40 years must not be discriminated against with regards to aspects such as promotion, employment landmark as well as benefits. Under this l egislation, the employees are entitled to get their benefits regardless of their age or new(prenominal) physical attributes. The employees prima facie case treatment is that of disparate treatment. In this case, there is both reason for Ms. Clark to prove age discrimination on the basis of disparate treatment through the physical exertion of Title VII case set in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green which was adopted in the ADEA. jibe to the provisions of 20 U.S.C ? 623, the employee must prove the four elements going to be discussed below in a bid to persuade the court that she can lay a claim for age discrimination as provided by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (Moram, 492). First and foremost, the employee must prove that she is a member of the protected class. In order to satisfy the requirement for this prima facie case, there is need for the employee to prove that she is over 40 years old. As noted in the case, Ms. Clark is 53 which marrow that she satisfies this requ irement. Conditions surrounding the vector sum of her employment posit to the effect that she has not been treated fairly given that a lenient or lighter ending could have been taken. As seen in the case study, there are other factors such as her disability which have contributed to the kind of treatment she is exposed to in the organisation. In the spirit of fairness, the decision she makes does not warranty termination of employment but she could have been reprimanded only whereby an agreement will be reached between the parties anguished. Secondly, Ms. Clark should prove that the decision made by the employer has adversely affected her employment. Termination of employment means that she is rendered jobless as a result of the decision by the employer to fire her due to the fact that she allows the jointure representatives to the company. According to her, the law stipulates that decisions can be made regarding such actions though the Board of Directors disagreed with her. In other words, it can be noted that they have another vendetta against her which is not directly related to decision she made which is considered as poor judgment. The glaring truth is that Ms. Clarks blindness is a cause for concern hence spirited efforts are made to fire her from the company. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, no employer is allowed to ill treat an employee on the basis of her physical attributes. The unprecedented decision by the employer has negatively impacted on Ms. Clark welfare hence she is liable to claim for damages or to be reinstated to her position with full benefits. The third requirement suggests that the employee must prove that he or she is qualified for the position. A about analysis of the case shows that Ms. Clark has good looks and enthusiasm for the