Age Discrimination in a Promotion
The answers to each Case Study must be 3 – 5 pages in length and completed in current APA formatting. The statements in each Case Study must be supported by at least 1 scholarly source, with an APA-formatted references list and in-text citations. Each Case Study must be submitted through the provided SafeAssign link. Each Case Study is due by 10:59 p.m. (CST) on Sunday of the module/week in which it is assigned.
n Chapter 2, “Applications: Age Discrimination in a Promotion?”: answer questions 1 and 2. (title page, at least three full and complete pages of original discussion and analysis [not counting quotations, extra white space, or wide margins], and reference page).
Submit this assignment by 10:59 p.m. (CST) on Sunday.
Each case study and other written assignments must be submitted as one MS Word attachment Professor’s recommendations/reminders:
1. Prior to beginning this assignment, please explore the “Case Study Instructions” link above.
2. Please review again the “Professor’s Improvement Suggestions” document available for download in the “Syllabus and Assignment Instructions” area of the Course Content. Reading and following the “Case Studies” section of this document will help you achieve full credit on the case studies.
3. Read the assigned case study and answer the specific case questions. (This is a CASE STUDY assignment – do not answer the general end-of-chapter discussion questions in error.)
4. You must submit one MS Word attachment containing a title page, at least three complete pages of original analysis and discussion, and a references page (a minimum of one current, scholarly reference published in or after 2014).
Correct use of the APA format for in-text citations and the references list is required for all BUSI 643 assignments.
One inch margins on all four sides, and 12 point Times New Roman fonts on all pages – title page, narrative, and references list.
Good tips on how to cite in-text and list references are available in the Professor’s Improvement Suggestions document.
5. Do not add extra spaces between lines, do not add extra white space at the top or bottom of pages, and do not use margins greater than one-inch. Doing so will result in a short paper and a significant grading reduction.
6. Keep quotations to an absolute minimum. Zero quotations preferred.
7. Submitting 2.9 pages of typed narrative or less will result in a significant grading reduction. The required title page and required references page do not count toward the minimum page count.
8. The case study must have a title page (title of paper, student’s name, course number and name, and the date submitted) and an APA-formatted references list.
9. Graduate-level analysis and discussion of case study scenarios requires good narrative prose. As such, please do not submit bulleted or numbered statements in case studies.
10. Use tables and figures sparingly; if these are used they must be captioned correctly in the APA format and do not count toward the three-page minimum of typed narrative.
11. The APA format requires that you insert in-text citations at the correct places in the narrative each and every time someone else influenced your work and when you use the ideas, statistics, terms or information of others.
Age Discrimination in a Promotion?
Best Protection Insurance Company
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
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:
MCC-L MCC-R CCS
RCM RCM RCM RCM
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-
RCM, to apply for one of the new
CCS positions since his job was being eliminated. The other RCMs, all of whom
over 40 years of age, were
also asked to apply. Neither Gus nor the other
promoted to the CCS positions. Other candidates, some of whom
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
age 40. Two of these
newly promoted employees had worked for, and
reported to, Gus as RCM.
88 Part Two Support Activities
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 belief” 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.
a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate