This week’s assignment is too review the below storyline and answer the accompanying questions as it relates to employment law.
Rick Saldona began working as a traveling salesperson for Aimer Winery in 2009. Sales constituted 90 percent of Saldona’s work time. Saldona worked an average of fifty hours per week but received no overtime pay. In June 2019, Saldona’s new supervisor, Caesar Braxton, claimed that Saldona had been inflating his reported sales calls and required Saldona to submit to a polygraph test. Saldona reported Braxton to the U.S. Department of Labor, which prohibited Aimer from requiring Saldona to take a polygraph test for this purpose. In August 2019, Saldona’s wife, Venita, fell from a ladder and sustained a head injury while employed as a full-time agricultural harvester. Saldona delivered to Aimer’s human resources department a letter from his wife’s physician indicating that she would need daily care for several months, and Saldona took leave until December 2019. Aimer had sixty-three employees at that time. When Saldona returned to Aimer, he was informed that his position had been eliminated because his sales territory had been combined with an adjacent territory.
Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions in essay format.
Would Saldona have been legally entitled to receive overtime pay at a higher rate? Why or why not?
What is the maximum length of time Saldona would have been allowed to take leave to care for his injured spouse?
Under what circumstances would Aimer have been allowed to require an employee to take a lie-detector test?
Would Aimer likely be able to avoid reinstating Saldona under the key employee exception? Why or why not?
Please note APA format should be followed regarding font, spacing, references, etc. No abstract or Running Header/Title Page is required for these assignments. Each question is worth 20 points.
