Short Answer Questions
Respond to all four of the following
questions. Short answer questions should
be not more than 250 words each.
1.
Define
disparate impact and disparate treatment.
How do they differ?
2.
Define
job description and job specification and describe how they are used.
3.
Compare
and contrast replacement charts and succession planning?
4.
Discuss
the different ways in which a firm can deal with temporary employee surpluses.
Essay
Questions
Respond to all three of the following
questions. Essay question answers should
not be more than 500 words each.
Question 1: You
have just taken on the role of Director of Recruiting at a grocery chain. The first thing you notice is that the
Careers page and the website for your company does not represent your company’s
desire to be an employer of choice. You
have embarked on a quest to change that and your CEO has asked what you think
about the company’s website. He has
noticed that Fortune Magazine’s “100
Best Companies to Work For” in 2016 listed three grocery stores in the top
100. They are:
(a)
Nugget
Markets
(b)
Wegmans
Food Market
(c)
Whole
Foods Market
Your CEO has
asked you to research their websites and provide an evaluation of what you see.
You should access the websites of these markets and conduct the following
analysis:
Consider and specifically evaluate the
design factor considerations (specifically address organization website design
information found in your readings) for these websites. In addition, using this information, consider
suggestions that would improve the recruitment section of each one. Provide an analysis to your CEO of these
websites along with key points that are important for your company to consider
in its website design.
Please remember – your response should
be written for a CEO to read. Grammar, style, and punctuation are important
for good communication in HR but CRITICAL when you are communicating with the
executive suite. Remember – executives
do not want to read a novel – you must learn to be brief but get your points
across effectively. No more than 2 pages
should be submitted for this question and use citations where required!
Question 2: The We Deny Everything Insurance Company
(WDE) handled a massive volume of claims each year in the corporate claims
function, as well as in its four regional claims centers. Corporate
claims were located in sunny California and the regional offices were located
in Atlanta, Cleveland, Providence, and Las Vegas. Corporate claims
were headed by the senior vice president of corporate claims (SVP).
Reporting to the SVP were 2 managers of corporate claims (MCC-Life and MCC
Homeowners/Residential) and a highly skilled corporate claims specialist
(CCS).
Each
regional office (4) was headed by a regional center manager (RCM). The
RCM was responsible for both supervisors and claim specialists within the
regional office. The RCM’s reported to the vice president of regional claims
(VPRC). This is the structure before reorganization (I suggest you
draw a chart for your own reference).
WDE
decided to reorganize its claims function by eliminating the 4 regional offices
(and the RCM position) and establishing numerous small field offices throughout
the country. The other part of the reorganization involved creating 5 new
CCS positions. The CCS position was to be redesigned and upgraded in
terms of knowledge and skill requirements. It was planned to staff these
new CCS positions through internal promotions from within the claims
function.
The
plaintiff in the case was Ron Whyme, a 53 year old RCM. Since his job was
being eliminated, Ron was asked by the SVP to apply for one of the new CCS
positions. The other RCM’s, all of whom were over the age of 40, were
also asked to do so. Neither Ron nor the other RCM’s were promoted to the
new CCS positions. Other candidates were also bypassed, and some of them
were also over the age of 40. The promotions went to 5 claim specialists and
supervisors from within the former regional offices, all of whom were under age
40. Two of the newly promoted employees had worked for, and actually
reported to Ron, as the RCM.
Ron
was not happy. Upon learning of his failure to be promoted, Ron wanted to
determine why he was not promoted. What he learned led him to feel he has
been discriminated against because of his age. Ron retained experienced
and expensive legal counsel, Bruce Lincoln. Lincoln, a high-powered
litigator, met informally with the SVP to try to determine what had happened in
the promotion process and why his client Ron had not been promoted.
Lincoln was told that there were a large number of candidates who were better
qualified than Ron and that Ron lacked adequate technical and communication
skills for the new job of CCS. The SVP refused to reconsider Ron for the
job and said that the decisions were “final”. Ron, through his attorney
Lincoln, then filed a suit in federal district court, claiming a violation of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967). Lincoln then subpoenaed
numerous WDE documents and files including the personnel files of all
applicants for the CCS positions.
Based
on discussions with Ron and the subpoenaed documents, the following information
emerged about the promotion process actually used by WDE. The SVP and the
2 MCC’s conducted the total 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 SVP and the MCC’s developed their own list of
employees that they thought might be interested in the job, including Ron, and
then met to consider the list of candidates. At that meeting, the
personnel files and previous performance appraisals of the candidates were not
reviewed or consulted. After deciding on the 5 candidates who would be offered
the promotion (all 5 accepted), the SVP and the MCC’s did browse the personnel
files and appraisals of only these 5 employees to check for any disconfirming
information about the employees. None was found.
Inspection
of the files by Lincoln revealed no written comments suggesting age bias in
past performance appraisals for any of the candidates, including Ron.
Also, there was no indication that Ron lacked technical and communication
skills. All of Ron’s previous appraisal ratings were above average, and
there was no evidence that Ron’s performance had declined recently. An
interview with the VPRC (Ron’s boss) revealed that he had not been consulted at
all during the promotion process. Ron’s boss could not believe that Ron
had not been promoted and in fact said that he was “shocked beyond
belief”. In his opinion, there was “absolutely no question” that Ron was
qualified in all respects for the CCS job.
Based
on the facts above you must respond to Part A and Part B below:
Part
A: Prepare an analysis that presents a
convincing disparate treatment claim that Ron has been intentionally
discriminated against on the basis of his age. Do not address the claim as a
disparate impact one. (Hint: Look at the
elements for a prima facie case of discrimination in Week 2)
Part
B: Prepare a rebuttal, from the
viewpoint of WDE, to the disparate treatment claim.
