CAN YOU DO THIS FOR ME: DUE 8/25/2019 ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE BOOK FOR CLASS

 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.

APPLICATIONS

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:

SVPCC

VPRC

MCC-L MCC-R CCS

RCM RCM RCM RCM

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.

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

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 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.

2. Present

a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate

treatment claim.