Case Analysis

MGMT 4251-M50, Fall 2019 1

MGMT 4251 Case Analysis

The Article/ Case Analysis will give you the opportunity to examine a U.S. case as it relates to a particular employee relations topic and will allow you to practice written communication and critical thinking skills. Instructions:

1. Select ONE case listed at the end of this document. Skim through each case in the Walsh’s Employment Law (6ed.) textbook and pick one that interests you the most.

2. Read the case from the textbook. You are required to find at least ONE article/website/ or other

reputable source related to the case. Reputable websites include legal or government website. Please cite both textbook and any outside source(s) used to complete this case analysis.

3. Specifically, discuss the following: 1) First Paragraph and section should be a brief summary of the case. Specifically: Identify and

discuss succinctly the case’s main legal issues/violation of law and what legal category (e.g. sexual harassment, age discrimination, wrongful discharge, national origin discrimination, class-action lawsuit for employment benefits, etc.) it falls under? Also, state here, how the courts ruled in this case.

2) Next Paragraph: Identify and discuss problems and parameters of the legal problem outlined in the case?

3) Next Paragraphs: Answer all end of case questions, starting with number 2. Please write in paragraph form, answers to these questions. Synthesize your thoughts tied with concepts from that chapter and outside sources. Also label each question or section by heading title that fits the question’s content.

4) Last Paragraph: Identify and discuss the “take-away”—key points outlined in the case? You may use chapter concepts here as well, if applicable. Also address how the information regarding this case is useful to employers.

WRITE IN YOUR OWN WORDS. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OR QUOTE ANYTHING FROM THE CASE. You MAY; however, copy a federal law word-for-word as that is relevant for stating in exact words to make a point about aspects of the law, regarding the case analysis. If you simply copy and paste, or quote, what the author wrote on anything else, you will get a ‘0.’

Writing and Formatting Guidelines:

• Your paper should be a minimum of three- to four-pages, double-spaced, maximum 12 pt font (Use up-to-date font styles: Arial, Calibri, Garamond, or Helvetica), with 1-inch margins.

• Please provide a title page with a title (case name), Chapter number listed (e.g., Chapter 1), your name, course name and number, university name, and date (e.g., October 5, 2019).

• Include page numbering. • Use sectional headings above paragraphs as necessary. • Include the full case reference from the textbook, at the end of your paper. If you omit this, your paper

will be returned with a grade of ‘0.’ • Paraphrase this paper analysis (no quotes). Not adhering to this requirement will result in a ‘0.’ • Proofread your paper to ensure that it is well-written and free of errors (spelling, grammar,

punctuation, sentence structure, correct word usage, etc.) • Use separate paragraphs instead of large lumps of writing.

MGMT 4251-M50, Fall 2019 2

• Provide a thesis/purpose statement in the first paragraph and include advanced organizers (points that will be made within the review).

• Submit your paper to the eCourseware Dropbox in a Microsoft Word file. Papers submitted in any other format will not be accepted. Papers submitted via email will not be accepted.

Grading:

Grading Criteria Maximum Points

Your Points

1: Document Formatting; Cover Page Professionally Formatted Cover Page with appropriate content; Section & Paragraph Headings; Ease of readability (paragraphs separated, bolded headings, etc.); page numbering

10

2: Purpose Purpose of the case clearly stated (1)

10

3: Key Points Identified Completely Key points in case clearly identified and summarized. Depth and substantive discussion with expanded thought and including chapter concepts where applicable. (2), (3), (4). Article summarized and synthesized with case and points presented.

25

4: APA citations; Proper Writing Protocol: All formatting and writing guidelines are followed. Paragraphs well- written with coherent flow and transitions between sentences and paragraphs; Purpose stated in first paragraph; advanced organizers used; Writing Mechanics (correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, word usage). APA citations both intext and fully referenced at the end and in proper format.

15

Total Points 60

Cases to Choose Among: CH01: Employment Law

• Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services • Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Company

CH02: Employment Relationship

• Keller v. Miri Microsystems • Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures • Salinas v. Commercial Interiors

CH03: Employment Discrimination

• Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools • Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service • DeMasters v. Carilion

MGMT 4251-M50, Fall 2019 3

CH04: Recruitment • NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue • EEOC v. Target Corp. • Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville • Spears v. Amazon

CH05: Background Checks, References, Employment Eligibility

• Navarete v. Naperville Psychiatric Ventures • Goode v. LexisNexis… • Tompson v. Bosswick • Ketchikan Drywall Services v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

CH06: Employment Tests

• Wright v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services • EEOC v. Dial Corp; Lanning v. SEPTA • Bauer v. Lynch

CH07: Hiring & Promotion • Ambat v. City & County of San Francisco • Shea v. Kerry • Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America • Hilde v. City of Eveleth

CH08: Harassment

• Gerald v. University of Puerto Rico • EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Racine • Hardage v. CBS

CH09: Reasonable Accommodation

• Samson v. Federal Express • Keith v. County of Oakland • EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. • Davis v. Fort Bend County

CH10: Work-Life Conflicts

• White v. Beltram Edge Tool • Young v. UPS • Huhmann v. Federal Express Corp. • Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

CH11: Wages, Hours, Pay Equity

• Kellar v. Summit Seating • Pippins v. KPMG • Riser v. QEP Energy

CH12: Benefits

• Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank • Battoni v. IBEW

MGMT 4251-M50, Fall 2019 4

• Whitley v. BP CH14: Occupational Safety & Health

• R. Williams Construction v. OSHRC • Seaworld v. Perez • State Ex Rel. Gross v. Industrial Commission of Ohio • City of Brighton v. Rodriguez

CH15: Privacy

• Koeppel v. Speirs • Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp • Estrada v. Wal-Mart Stores

CH16: Termination

• Reynolds v. Gentry Fin. Corp. • Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place of Dubuque II • Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Invs. • Munroe v. Cent Bucks School District