PanpaliaAnshul
VeritasKarishma - I have a query on the argument. can you please help in clarifying it ?
Argument says - Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to reject a job applicant if working in the job would entail a 90 percent chance that the applicant would suffer a heart attack. The presiding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers.
My query - If current law already allows companies to reject a job applicant, what ruling court has passed. I am not getting this part.
Note that laws are generic. They need to be interpreted by the court on case to case basis. Future cases can refer to previous rulings if they are applicable in their own cases too.
For example, the law may say that safety of both parties needs to be ensured before any hiring. Now a judge needs to rule whether "a 90% chance of applicant's heart attack" falls under this law.
The question is why this ruling may not be effective in regulating employment practices? Why can't this ruling become a part of hiring criteria?
(B) No legally accepted methods exist for calculating the risk of a job applicant's having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation.
If there is no legally acceptable method of calculating the risk of heart attack of a candidate, how can this ruling be useful? A company may reject an applicant on the premise that his risk of heart attack in the job is above 90% but if this case comes to court, there is no legally acceptable method to prove that the candidate's risk is above 90%. Then the law is meaningless. Hence, this law cannot become a part of hiring criteria.
This is correct.