HRM Lesson 3 Case Study: Discrimination or Non-Performance
HRM Lesson 3 Case Study: Discrimination or Non-Performance
Lesson 3 Case Study: Discrimination or Non-Performance
This case involves the evaluation of Dr. George Annan in the performance of his duties as an Assistant Professor at NPU. Although initially receiving a “reasonably expected” subsequent evaluations were increasingly negative and his contract was not renewed. Although Department Head Mary Reed believed she provided adequate feedback, and that Annan had largely ignored her advice, she knew she had to provide evidence to defend NPU should Annan pursue a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Objectives
1. To demonstrate some of the legal issues that can result when an employee’s employment contract is not renewed.
2. To illustrate the complexities relating to situations involving Title VII.
3. To emphasize the need for proper documentation of credible evidence with regard to employment personnel decisions.
4. To stress the importance of proactive measures designed to reduce the likelihood of Title VII violations.
5. To emphasize the necessity of developing and instituting “best practices” into company policies.
The followings are questions that will help guide your case study:
o George Annan is considering a Title VII claim against NPU for wrongful discrimination. Would this claim be for a disparate impact or a disparate treatment claim, why? Who has the burden of proof and what has to be shown to meet this burden? How would George establish a prima facia case and why is this important? What would the defendant need to show to avoid liability? What does the plaintiff need to prevail?
o What should the University (Reed) do differently? What recommendations for changes to significantly reduce the risk of a discrimination lawsuit in this case and in the future?
o What are some of the best practices management should institute to help minimize exposure to liability under Title VII? Why would this be effective?
o What Policy suggestions for disciplinary/termination/non-renewal to be used by a public/non-profit to minimize future Title VII expose.
Format
This is your first large paper submission, DO NOT include outside readings in your analysis, but citations are required. Remember, the word limit is 2000 words and penalties are incurred for going over the limit (does not include title page and bibliography) and late submissions.
Basic Structure of a Policy Paper
1. Introduction (and Summary). These are sometimes broken out as separate sections, with the introduction dedicated to the paper’s broad goals and underlying motivations and the background allowing a fuller development of the historical rationale and context for the issue. Sometimes they are joined to describe the context for the ultimate goal, the decision to move forward with research on the topic, or the big picture for your research. This is also where you summarize the case and a BRIEF introduction of the issues. Remember, this is a professional assignment, not a class assignment, so assume the reader has only a cursory understanding of the case. Also, be mindful that the majority of your grade comes from other sections of the paper.
2. Issue Identification and Policy Options. This is where you would identify the COURSE issues involved in the case study (2-3) and possible policy options (2 per issue) to overcome/solve the issues. You are free to use any issue you find in the COURSE, but I recommend using the ones most easily distinguished in the case and can be best defined and supported by the course materials. Policy options also come from the COURSE. You may want to explore the pros and cons of possible policy options.
3. Recommendations. This can be a single section covering the reasons you select each recommendation. Included in your discussion may be the reasons for your recommendations, implementation difficulties, and potential outcomes. 4. Conclusion. Here, you might return to the big picture or the motive of your analysis: What is the goal of the analysis or of your policy recommendation/s? What will happen if the decisionmaker does not act on your research or move forward with the recommendation? What will happen if she does? While you do not want to succumb to rhetoric, this is your opportunity to remind your reader of the importance of your analysis. A short conclusion is always helpful.
5. Bibliography. While professional white papers may not reference their sources, any academic papers must provide a full bibliography (APA citations required).
Reference:
Cumber, C. J. & O’Brien, J. (2015). “Discrimination or Non-Performance.” Harvard Business Review.
Rubric
Individual Case Analysis Rubric
Individual Case Analysis Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis of Issues Problem
3 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
• Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems • Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s) • Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading • Demonstrates complete command of the course concepts and analytical tools studied
2.7 pts
Developed (90-94%)
• Presents a thorough analysis of most of the issues identified • Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s) • Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading • Demonstrates good command of the course concepts and analytical tools studied
2.4 pts
Developing (80-90%)
• Presents a thorough/good analysis of most/some of the issues identified • Demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the topic(s) an issue(s) • Makes appropriate but sometimes vague connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading • Demonstrates limited command of the course concepts and analytical tools studied
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
• Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of some of the identified issues • Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s) • Makes few or no connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis/Evaluation of Options and Recommendations
3 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with strong arguments and evidence; presents a balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective • Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly well-supported by the information presented and concepts from the readings • Presents interesting and thoughtful options to address the identifies issues
2.7 pts
Developed (90-94%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with good arguments and evidence; presents a fairly balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective • Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the readings • Presents thoughtful options to address the identifies issues
2.4 pts
Developing (80-90%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with limited arguments and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided view • Presents a realistic and appropriate recommendations somewhat weakly supported by the information presented and concepts from the readings • Presents limited options to address the identifies issues
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with few arguments and evidence; argument is one-sided and not objective • Presents recommendations with little support from the information presented and concepts from the readings
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing Mechanics
3 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness; includes thorough details and relevant data and information; extremely well organized
2.7 pts
Developed (90-94%)
Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors; includes sufficient details and relevant data and information; well-organized
2.4 pts
Developing (80-90%)
Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors; gives insufficient detail and relevant data and information; lacks organization
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; lacks detail and relevant data and information; poorly organized
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome APA Guidelines
1 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
Uses APA guidelines accurately and consistently to cite sources
0.9 pts
Developed (90-94%)
Uses APA guidelines with minor violations to cite sources
0.8 pts
Developing (80-90%)
Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA guidelines
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
Does not use APA guidelines
1 pts
Total Points: 10
