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.
3
5 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
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
