Answer:A) There is no set of guidelines on how to take any potential disciplinary actions with disabled employees
Explanation:
The Absentee rates has no bearing on whether to hire Jay or not. Neither is a demand for higher performance based on the accommodations they will make for him. Employment Discrimination laws prevent organizations from discriminating against applicants based on their race, sex, disability, among other factors. Therefore, they cannot set a higher target for him than those set for workers without disabilities.
While option D would do more to encourage, than prevent Lulumelon from employing Jay, it is not factually correct. During recruitment, accommodations have to made to ensure that the workplace environment is as conducive to a worker with a disability as those without. These accommodations such as physical changes to ensure accessibility, changes to software and technology as well as policy changes can be substantial financially.
A valid reason for not employing Jay is the absence of a disciplinary procedure for people with disabilities in place. The company has to prepare for all possible events and consider what would happen if they had to take disciplinary measures against Jay, which is not available at the moment.
Answer:
What bests describes the context of President Roosevelt's remarks is gaining support for the new deal.
Answer: B.) intentional infliction of emotional distress
Explanation: Emotional damage or distress often result from actions aimed at an individual's psychological system. Negative words, comments or analysis of an individual usually contribute a lot to the emotional trauma people usually witness which could result in loss of confidence or despondency. The professor's comment seems damaging and it is capable of inflicting emotional distresses on the target. Therefore, the professor could be held liable of intentional infliction of emotional distress on the student if sued.
Answer:
This segment of the Constitution explains how Congress can propose some amendments. It also says that 3/4 of the states have to approve it. Best of Luck to You!
B. They ruled that segregation was legal as long as the 'separate but equal' factor applied :)<span />
