Case Study: Ellen Fjellestad V. Pizza Hut

Happy Valley is a unionized employer. Their implementing a new policy without any real notice will be problem with the union. The company needs to inform the union and the employees of the any new policies prior to enforcing them. David Walsh writes, “Unionized employers must clearly communicate changes in policies before attempting to enforce new, more stringent standards.” (Walsh, 2013-2016, pg. 700) Happy Valley is trying to enforce a stricter policy on attendance and be selective of who will be punished under the new rule. The fact that the policy is only to be enforced for those that have been with the company five years or less is inconsistent. David Walsh writes, “Enforcement of rules must be consistent across both time and different individuals engaging in the same conduct.” (Walsh, 2013-2016, pg. 700) If the union members were the newer employees, Happy Valley could selectively use the policy to terminate the union members, which would be a violation of NLRA. Happy Valley would have done an unfair labor practice if they choose to use the new policy

In the case Ellen Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut, the court used this test in reaching their decision, “In Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., The Third Circuit held that a disabled employee must demonstrate the following factors to show that an employer failed to participate in the interactive process: 1) the employer knew about the employee 's disability; 2) the employee requested accommodations or assistance for his or her disability; 3) the employer did not make a good faith effort to assist the employee in seeking accommodations; and 4) the employee could have been reasonably accommodated but for the employer 's lack of good faith.” (Ellen Fjellestad, Appellant, v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., Appellee, 1999) Additionally, by not granting an extension to Mr. Hoke’s leave, he could file a discrimination claim against Wolverine Poultry for discriminating against