Case study must be a minimum of 3 pages of original discussion and analysis, not counting the title page, reference page, figures, tables, and appendixes. The statements in Case Study m
Case study must be a minimum of 3 pages of original discussion and analysis, not
counting the title page, reference page, figures, tables, and appendixes. The statements in
Case Study must be supported by at least 1 scholarly reference, cited throughout the narrative
and placed on the reference list in the APA format. Organize content under Level 1 headings.
Questions to be answered in case study are:
1. Prepare a written report that presents a convincing disparate treatment claim that Gus had been intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his age. Do not address the claim as one of disparate impact.
2. Present a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate treatment claim.
CASE INFORMATION ATTACHED AND GRADING RUBRIC
Age Discrimination in a Promotion?
Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC) handles a massive volume of claims each year in the corporate claims function, as well as in its four regional claims centers. The corporate claims function is headed by the senior vice president of corporate claims (SVPCC); reporting to the SVPCC are two managers of corporate claims (MCC-Life and MCC-Residential) and a highly skilled corporate claims specialist (CCS). Each regional office is headed by a regional center manager (RCM); the RCM is responsible for both supervisors and claims specialists within the regional office. The RCMs report to the vice president of regional claims (VPRC). The organization is structured as follows:
BPIC decided to reorganize its claims function by eliminating the four regional offices (and the RCM position) and establishing numerous small field offices throughout the country. The other part of the reorganization involved creating five new CCS positions. The CCS job itself was to be redesigned and upgraded in terms of knowledge and skill requirements. These new CCS positions would be staffed through internal promotions from within the claims function.
The SVPCC asked Gus Tavus, a 52-year-old RCM, to apply for one of the new CCS positions since his job was being eliminated. The other RCMs, all of whom were over 40 years of age, were also asked to apply. Neither Gus nor the other RCMs were promoted to the CCS positions. Other candidates, some of whom were also over age 40, were also bypassed. The promotions went to five claims specialists and supervisors from within the former regional offices, all of whom were under age 40. Two of these newly promoted employees had worked for, and reported to, Gus as RCM.
Upon learning of his failure to be promoted, Gus sought to find out why. What he learned led him to believe that he had been discriminated against because of his age. He then retained legal counsel, attorney Bruce Davis. Bruce met informally with the SVPCC to try to determine what had happened in the promotion process and why his client had not been promoted. He was told that there were numerous candidates who were better qualified than Gus and that Gus lacked adequate technical and communication skills for the new job of CCS. The SVPCC refused to reconsider Gus for the job and said that all decisions were etched in stone. Gus and Bruce then filed suit in federal district court, claiming a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. They also subpoenaed numerous BPIC documents, including the personnel files of all applicants for the CCS positions.
After reviewing the documents and discussing things with Gus, Bruce learned more about the promotion process actually used by BPIC. The SVPCC and the two MCCs conducted the entire process; they received no input from the VPRC or the HR department. There was no formal, written job description for the new CCS position, nor was there a formal internal job posting as required by company policy. The SVPCC and the MCCs developed a list of employees they thought might be interested in the job, including Gus, and then met to consider the list of candidates. At that meeting, the personnel files and previous performance appraisals of the candidates were not consulted. After deciding on the five candidates who would be offered the promotion (all five accepted), the SVPCC and MCCs scanned the personnel files and appraisals of these five (only) to check for any disconfirming information. None was found. Bruce’s inspection of the files revealed no written comments suggesting age bias in past performance appraisals for any of the candidates, including Gus. Also, there was no indication that Gus lacked technical and communication skills. All of Gus’s previous appraisal ratings were above average, and there was no evidence of decline in the favorability of the ratings. Finally, an interview with the VPRC (Gus’s boss) revealed that he had not been consulted at all during the promotion process, that he was “shocked beyond page 91belief” that Gus had not been promoted, and that there was “no question” but that Gus was qualified in all respects for the CCS job.
1. Prepare a written report that presents a convincing disparate treatment claim that Gus had been intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his age. Do not address the claim as one of disparate impact.
2. Present a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate treatment claim.
,
Criteria Ratings Points
Topic, domains and concepts
35 to >31 pts
Advanced
Clearly addresses the topic assigned, stays on topic, evaluates all domains, comprehensive in content, uses terms and concepts from reading, demonstrates clarity of expression. Statements are supported by at least 1 scholarly source published within the past five years, correctly cited throughout the narrative.
31 to >28 pts
Proficient
Addresses the topic assigned, stays on topic, evaluates most domains, discusses content, uses terms and concepts from reading, and demonstrates clarity of expression. Statements are supported by at least 1 scholarly source published within the past five years, cited at least once in the narrative.
28 to >0 pts
Developing
Does a poor to fair job of addressing the topic assigned, stays on topic, evaluates some domains, discusses content, does not use terms and concepts from reading, does not demonstrate clarity of expression. Statements are not supported by at least 1 scholarly source published within the past five years and cited in the narrative.
0 pts
Not Present
Failing. Student shows evidence of refusal or inability to provide the required content.
35 pts
Work Habits
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Superior work in all areas. Student consistently exceeds minimal expectations in all areas regarding content analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of topics, participation, timeliness, and writing style.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Good work in most areas. Student demonstrates minor deficiencies in some areas regarding content, analysis, writing style, and/or participation.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Poor to fair work in most areas. Student exhibits need for improvement in most areas regarding content, analysis, writing style, and/or participation.
0 pts
Not Present
Failing. Student shows evidence of refusal or inability to meet minimum standards of work.
30 pts
Personal application
5 to >4 pts
Advanced
The student provides thorough applications as a result of his/her professional life.
4 to >3 pts
Proficient
The student provides good applications as a result of his/her professional life.
3 to >0 pts
Developing
The student provides poor to fair applications as a result of his/her professional life.
0 pts
Not Present
The student provides zero applications as a result of his/her professional life.
5 pts
Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320
Criteria Ratings Points
APA Formatting
10 to >9 pts
Advanced
APA format followed, organizes content under APA headings, no large filler quotes, clearly does not plagiarize, clearly finds supportive reasons in reading and applies them in the case study. APA-formatted reference list and in-text citations are included.
9 to >7 pts
Proficient
APA format followed most of the time, headings contained some errors, has no large filler quotes, does not plagiarize, finds supportive reasons in reading and applies them in the case study. Reference list and in-text citations contain 2 – 5 errors.
7 to >0 pts
Developing
APA format inconsistent throughout; missing headings; some large filler quotes; does not plagiarize; finds few supportive reasons in reading and applies them in the case study; reference list, in-text citations, and headings contain more than 5 errors.
0 pts
Not Present
APA format was not followed; large filler quotes present; does not plagiarize; does not find supportive reasons in reading or apply them in the case study; reference list and in-text citations are not included.
10 pts
Spelling, Grammar and Mechanics
10 to >9 pts
Advanced
The Case Study begins with a title page and was typed in 12-point Times New Roman fonts on all pages; all pages were double-spaced; 1-inch margins on all four sides were used. Correct grammar and punctuation were present throughout. Correct spelling and spacing were present throughout. The paper was typed in a formal style and written in the third person.
9 to >7 pts
Proficient
Some errors with the title page, 12-point Times New Roman fonts, double-spacing; or 1-inch margins were present. Some errors with errors with one or more of the following were present: • Grammar, and/or; • Punctuation, and/or, • Spelling, and/or; • Spacing. Some errors with formal style and/or third person were present. 1 – 3 errors were present.
7 to >0 pts
Developing
Significant errors with the title page, 12-point Times New Roman fonts, double-spacing; align text left; extra spacing; or 1-inch margins were present. Significant errors with one or more of the following were present: • Grammar, and/or; • Punctuation, and/or, • Spelling, and/or; • Spacing. Significant errors with formal style and/or third person were present. More than 3 errors were present.
0 pts
Not Present
Errors with spelling, grammar, and/or mechanics were so pervasive that the readability and level of scholarship of the paper were substantially reduced.
10 pts
Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320
Criteria Ratings Points
Page count
10 to >9 pts
Advanced
At least 3 complete pages of original graduate-level analysis, evaluation, and discussion (plus title page, reference page, and tables or figures).
9 to >7 pts
Proficient
At least 2.9 pages of original graduate-level analysis, evaluation, and discussion (plus title page, reference page, and tables or figures).
7 to >0 pts
Developing
2.0 – 2.8 pages of original graduate-level analysis, evaluation, and discussion (plus title page, reference page, and tables or figures).
0 pts
Not Present
Less than 2 pages submitted.
10 pts
Total Points: 100
Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
