Employment Law Assignment

0 comments

David and Amy are brother-and-sister and live in Boca Raton, Florida. David is a writer, working on his first book. He had been employed as a police officer in Delray Beach, but left the force after being shot in the line of duty. As a result of the shooting, David is paralyzed from his waist down, and now uses a wheelchair.

Amy is an event planner, having earned her degree in Event Management from Lynn University. She worked for Boca’s Best Party Planners, Inc. for two years, but lost her job when the company went bankrupt. She has an interview set up on Friday with Big Haas Country Club for their open event manager position.

On Friday, David and Amy go their ways – David heads to the new Italian Yummy restaurant to meet a friend, Amy goes to her interview.

When David arrives at Italian Yummy, he is shocked to see that all of the tables are high, bar-top tables. He asks Jerry Jerk, the manager, if there is a low table that he can use, accounting for his wheelchair. “Sorry, pal,” Jerk responds, “we feel badly about it, but we just don’t have any low tables. Don’t get many guys in wheelchairs in here, ya know, so we don’t really bother.”

Amy’s interview actually goes worse than Adam’s attempt at lunch. Amy thinks that her interview with Barry Bigot is going quite well, as she determines that she is clearly well-qualified for this job. Suddenly, Bigot looks up from Amy’s resume and says, “Oh, wait, you went to Solomon Schechter Hebrew High School. You’re Jewish? Sorry, but we don’t hire any Jews. Thanks for coming in.”

David and Amy each file lawsuits – David against Italian Yummy, Amy against Big Haas Country Club.

Write a report giving the following for each of these cases:

1) Providing a complete overview of ADA and Civil Rights Act, including research, using scholarly journals to assist in the full presentation of the laws;

2) Providing full research (Lexis/Nexis will be useful to you, as discussed in class) into at least three cases similar to cases at hand, critically evaluating and selecting only the three most relevant cases;

3) Specifying each of the legal elements of discrimination; and

4) Specifically applying elements of the discrimination to the facts of the case at hand, providing specific consideration to the issue of bias as we discussed in class, and offering your opinion as to how each case should be decided.

The report shall be submitted in 12-point typed, double-spaced form, APA Format. A report that does not follow this form will be deducted per the grading rubric. The report requires citations to the three cases found in research as well as no fewer than three additional scholarly journals (law review articles are considered scholarly journals; “self-help” and other general web-based articles are not considered scholarly journals).

Rubric

BUS 372 Employment law AND 300 Level Grading Rubric: Written Communication v2018

BUS 372 Employment law AND 300 Level Grading Rubric: Written Communication v2018

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting strategy appropriate to assignmentview longer description

threshold: 3.83 pts

5.0 ptsConsistently used correct writing strategies specific to assignment

4.33 ptsMostly used correct writing strategies specific to assignment

3.83 ptsUsed some correct writing strategies specific to assignment

3.33 ptsMinimally used correct writing strategies specific to assignment

0.0 ptsDid not use correct writing strategies specific to assignment

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction and thesis statementthreshold: 7.65 pts

10.0 ptsThoroughly engaging introduction, revealed a clear and substantive thesis

8.65 ptsEngaging introduction, revealed a clear thesis

7.65 ptsIntroduction revealed a thesis lacking in clarity

6.65 ptsIntroduction revealed a general topic but not a thesis

0.0 ptsLittle or no introductory material

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganizationview longer description

threshold: 7.65 pts

10.0 ptsStructure enhanced the argument, clearly organized paragraphs and seamless transitions

8.65 ptsMostly successful structure, paragraphs, and transitions

7.65 ptsOrganization is inconsistent or uneven

6.65 ptsOrganization is in the way of reading for content

0.0 ptsLack of coherent organization

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence / Supporting ideasthreshold: 11.48 pts

15.0 ptsConsistently developed strong arguments with academically valid evidence

12.98 ptsMostly developed strong arguments with academically valid evidence

11.48 ptsDeveloped some arguments with academically valid evidence

9.98 ptsMinimally developed arguments with academically valid evidence

0.0 ptsDid not develop arguments with academically valid evidence

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusionthreshold: 3.83 pts

5.0 ptsThoroughly engaging conclusion, fully reviewed thesis and main ideas

4.33 ptsEngaging conclusion, reviewed thesis and main ideas

3.83 ptsConclusion reviewed some main ideas

3.33 ptsConclusion minimally reviewed main ideas

0.0 ptsLittle or no conclusive material

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, spelling, and writing stylethreshold: 7.65 pts

10.0 ptsConsistently used correct grammar, spelling, and writing style. Virtually no errors

8.65 ptsMostly used correct grammar, spelling, and writing style. Some minor errors

7.65 ptsFrequent minor errors of grammar, spelling, or writing style

6.65 ptsSerious errors of grammar, spelling, or writing style

0.0 ptsGrammar or spelling errors get in the way of reading for content

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLayout and documentation (APA, Chicago, etc.)threshold: 3.83 pts

5.0 ptsConsistently used correct layout and documentation. Virtually no errors

4.33 ptsMostly used correct layout and documentation. Some minor errors

3.83 ptsFrequent minor errors of layout or documentation

3.33 ptsSerious errors of layout or documentation

0.0 ptsLittle or no documentation

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLaw overview / SLO 9.4, 9.2, 13.6

20.0 pts

Providing a complete overview of ADA and Civil Rights Act

15.0 pts

Providing less than complete overview of ADA and Civil Rights Act, inc. missing one of the laws

10.0 pts

Providing some overview of either the ADA or Civil Rights Act, including missing at least one of the laws

5.0 pts

Providing an incomplete overview of one law, either ADA or Civil Rights Act.

0.0 pts

Failure to refer to the ADA and/or the Civil Right Act

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLegal elements / SLO 9.4, 9.2, 13.6

20.0 pts

Specifying each of the legal elements of discrimination; Specifically applying elements of the discrimination to the facts of the case at hand

15.0 pts

Specifying most of the legal elements of discrimination; Generally applying elements of the discrimination to the facts of the case at hand

10.0 pts

Noting some of the legal elements of discrimination; Generally applying one of the elements of the discrimination to the facts of the case at hand

5.0 pts

Failing to state most of the elements of discrimination; Failing to apply the elements of discrimination to the facts of the case at hand

0.0 pts

Failing to state elements of discrimination; Failing to apply elements of discrimination to the facts of the case at hand

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThree cases research / SLO 9.4, 9.2, 13.6

15.0 pts

Providing full research into at least three cases similar to cases at hand, critically evaluating and selecting only the three most-relevant cases

11.25 pts

Providing some useful research into fewer than three cases similar to cases at hand, critically evaluating and selecting a relevant case

7.5 pts

Providing some research into one case similar to cases at hand, selecting relevant cases for the discussion without a complete critical evaluation of the cases’ relevance

3.75 pts

Referring to a case that might be relevant, not providing reasoning for selecting a case

0.0 pts

Providing no cases; Providing no analysis of those cases

15.0 pts

Total Points: 115.0

About the Author

Follow me


{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}