Supported by the following, the extended living company violated the Director's employment rights by abusing its authority over her. They achieved this by creating a hostile workplace that is a blatant violation of the harassment law which states that when a person is interrupted in their work, it should be considered harassment. Additionally, the Age Discrimination Act has been violated by the proliferation of age discrimination that “involves treating an employee less favorably because of his or her age” (EEOC Laws, 2015, paragraph 1). Despite the addition of other multiple claims of impropriety against the director, the extended life company was outside of its original claim which resulted in the director's dismissal. Based on these facts, the only aspect of this case that can be held against the director is the initial termination claim against her. Second, the judge should impose a fine for their actions and require the extended residence facility to change its management system and ask it to provide plausible evidence that it has corrected the labor law violations and verify that these measures corrective measures work and are compliant.