Your team is to analyze the case presented much like the cases submitted via Turnitin. Instead of developing a written paper, your team is to develop a presentation covering all of the elements that would have been covered in a research paper. Sources must be properly cited, and at least two sources other than the textbook must be used to include outside court cases. The final slide of your presentation should list your references in APA format.

Each team member must narrate the slides he/she contributed to the presentation in Voice Thread. The team will receive one grade for the assignment.

Case Scenario

Lynette Hines is employed by Irvin Industries. She recently became a Seven Day Adventist and has informed her employer that she can no longer work on Saturday. Irvin Industries makes seat cushions for airplanes and is a relatively small operation. While Saturday is not a regular workday, frequently employees are required to work on Saturday and they are informed of this condition of employment during the hiring process. Lynette is told by her supervisor that if the plant is operating on a Saturday, she will have to be there unless she is sick. He explained to Lynette that he had no one to do her job and her absence would slow down production. The following Saturday, Lynette failed to report to work and she was fired. She filed a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII.

Team Assignment Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

Analysis: A thorough analysis was discussed to include applying the legal principles and incorporating research.

40 pts- Excellent:The analysis used the correct legal principles and applied them correctly. Appropriate assumptions were stated to provide context to the argument made. Outside research was used to support the argument.

30 pts- Good: The analysis used the correct legal principles for the most part and applied them correctly. Appropriate assumptions were stated to provide context to the arguments made. Outside research was used to support the argument.

20 pts-Fair: The analysis did not thoroughly demonstrate the use of legal principles and/or did not consistently apply them correctly. Outside research did not thoroughly support the argument.

10 pts-Poor: The correct legal principle was not used or was poorly applied. Assumptions were not clearly stated or accurately applied. Outside research was not used to support the argument.

0 pts: Not attempted

/ 40 pts

Management Tips: A thorough set of management tips were provided to include dealing with the current situation and preventing similar issues in the future.

30 pts- Excellent: Management tips addressed the situation and provided recommendations for preventing similar situations in the future.

23 pts- Good: Management tips addressed the situation and provided recommendations for preventing similar situations in the future for the most part.

15 pts- Fair: Management tips did not address the situation or did not provide recommendations for preventing similar situations in the future.

8 pts- Poor: Management tips did not thoroughly address the situation or provide recommendations for preventing similar situations in the future.

0 pts- Not attempted

/ 30 pts

Formatting: Follows the requirements related to format and APA.

10 pts- Excellent: Clearly follows the requirements related to format and APA.

8 pts- Good: Follows, for the most part, the requirements related to format and APA.

5 pts- Fair: Does not consistently follow the requirements related to format and APA.

3 pts- Poor: Poorly follows the requirements related to format and APA.

0 pts Not attempted

/ 10 pts

References: Scholarly level of references, how effective references are used, soundness of references.

10 pts- Excellent: All references used are of good/scholarly quality. There is a minimum of two scholarly references to include outside court cases, and they are used effectively.

8 pts- Good: Most references used are of good/scholarly quality. There is a minimum of two scholarly references to include outside court cases, and they are used effectively.

5 pts- Fair: Some references used are of good/scholarly quality. There is a not minimum of two scholarly references to include outside court cases, and/or they are not used effectively.

3 pts- Poor: Most references used are not of good/scholarly quality. There is not a minimum of two scholarly references to include outside court cases, and they are not used effectively.

0 pts Not attempted

/ 10 pts

Presentation Quality: A thorough presentation was delivered in a logical manner presenting main points without reading the full text from slides.

10 pts- Excellent:The presentation was delivered in a logical manner presenting main points without reading the full text from slides.

8 pts- Good: The presentation was mostly delivered in a logical manner presenting main points usually without reading the full text from slides.

5 pts- Fair:The presentation was not fully delivered in a logical manner presenting main points. Some slides were presented by reading the slide text to the viewer.

3 pts- Poor: The presentation was not delivered in a logical manner, and/or slides were often presented by reading the slide text to the viewer.

0 pts Not attempted

/ 10 pts

Total Points: 0