Case Study 1
Victoria Smith
Liberty University
The Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC) receives a tremendous number of claims,
in which they handle each year within their various claims’ offices. BPIC has recently undergone
an internal reorganization and restructuring process. This process consisted of eliminating the
four regional offices which affected the RCM position. To replace these offices, many small
field offices were created that would be throughout the country. In addition, to these new offices
the company would create a total of five new CCS positions to take the place of the once
corporate claims specialist (CCS). In order to fill these roles, the company would hire from
within and offer promotions for five existing employees. BPIC reached out to an array of
employees in which company officials believed would be interested. Among those employees
was Gus Tavus, a 52-year old man who’s position as RVC was being eliminated. However, Gus
and the other RCMs who were all over 40 years of age that were asked to apply for the position
were not promoted to the CCS positions. The positions went to existing claims specialists as well
as supervisors from within the previous regional offices, all of whom were under the age of 40
years old. Two of the promoted employees had at one point worked for and reported to Gus
while in his position as RCM. Upon finding this information out, Gus sought out to investigate
further into this situation and discover why he had not been promoted. The information that Gus
discovered led him to believe that he had been discriminated against because of his age. Gus then
obtained legal counsel from attorney, Bruce Davis, who started his own investigation by
conducting interviews, reviewing over company files and documents, and evaluating the hiring
and promotion process that were used by BPIC. Bruce’s finding revealed that multiple
discrepancies in BPIC’s reasons as to why Gus did not get offered the CCS position. As a result,
a disparate treatment claim was created to support that Gus was intentionally discriminated
against due to his age.
According to Heneman, Judge & Mueller, (2019), a disparate treatment claim is a
statement that is created based upon allegations of “intentional” discrimination where the
employer both “knowingly” and “deliberately” treated people differently or inferiorly then others
based on specific characteristics such as sex, race, or age” (p.63). Before filing a complaint there
are several factors that should be evident in the discrimination. First, the evidence of
discrimination must be “direct”. This might include an organization having a written policy that
states that only men can be considered for certain jobs or positions. Secondly, the act of
discrimination might not be so direct but could include an array of mixed motives (prohibited
characteristic plus legitimate reason) are utilized to prohibit an individual from being promoted
or hired. Lastly, Heneman et al., (2019) states that the evidence of discrimination that prevented
the hire or promotion must include four factors:
1. The person belongs to a protected class
2. The person applied for, and was qualified for, a job the employer was trying to fill.
3. The person was rejected despite being qualified.
4. The position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants as
qualified as the person rejected.
Disparate Treatment Claim
In the matter of age discrimination, I, Bruce Davis, legal counsel for Gus Tavus, is filing
a claim of disparate treatment of Mr. Tavus which is based on his age. Mr. Tavus, a 52-year old
male, who at the time was employed by at Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC) as the
RCM, was encouraged to apply for a new CCS position that would take the place of his current
position due to internal restructuring. This restructuring and reorganization called for BPIC to
eliminate four regional offices, including Mr. Tavus’s job, while establishing small field offices
that would be throughout the country and open five new CCS positions. BPIC made the decision
to fill these positions from internal promotions.
Among those that applied were, Mr. Tavus and several other recent RCMs, who were all
over the age of 40-years old and were asked and encouraged to apply for this job by senior vice
president of corporate claims (SVPCC). However, Mr. Tavus and all other applicants that were
over the age of 40-years old were denied the position. While the five applicants that obtained the
promotion happened to all be under the age of 40. Following, information obtained from
interviews with company officials revealed that Gus was not promoted due to other applicants
being more qualified then Gus and that Gus did not obtain adequate technical and
communication skills.
This case in all aspects meets the previous four factors listed above in order to prove a
charge of discrimination. A protected class falls under the characteristics of a person who cannot
be targeted for discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action both
contain statutory federal laws that prohibit individuals from being discriminated against based
upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy, age, genetic information, and disability
(Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2017). In this case, Gus Tavus who is 52 years of age along
with all other applicant for the CCS position that were over the age of 40, makes them apart of
the protected class. Gus, who’s previous position was a RCM but was told to apply for the CCS
position by the SVPCC. According to Mr. Tavus’s boss the vice president of regional claims
(VPRC) who was in disbelief to discover Gus has not gotten the promotion, stated that Gus was
very qualified in all aspects for the CCS position and that he had not been asked or consulted
concerning or during the promotion process. While, two of Gus’s former subordinates that had
worked for and reported to him as the RCM were promoted to the CCS position. In addition,
previous records and files showed that Gus exceeded in former performance appraisal and that he
did not lack in technical or communication skills. However, these files were not consulted or
examined over during the promotion process and went against the information Gus was given as
to why he did not receive the position. While the position did not remain open due to being filled
by five candidates that were all under the age of 40 and that were all as qualified as Gus.
Nonetheless, the company policy was not upheld as there was no job description for the CCS
position and no internal job posting. This all revealed that Gus was more than qualified for the
position and that there was evidence of discrimination.
BPIC Rebuttal
The Best Protecting Insurance Company (BPIC), considered all applicants fairly and did
not discriminate against any candidates including Mr. Tavus because of their age. Even though
Mr. Tavus worked as the RCM, upon reviewing over Mr. Tavus’s qualifications we found that he
was not adequately qualified for the position due to insufficient technical and communication
skills. While the complaint filed is based upon the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, BPIC did not use any of the specific characteristics including age to make our decisions
but rather other factors and qualifications. For the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
declares that it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any individual that is 40
years of age or older and states that no employer should withhold a position or promotion from
an individual due to their age (McCann, 2017). However, in this matter our company did not fail
or refuse to promote Mr. Tavus to the CCS position based upon age discrimination and thus was
not in violation of this act. Candidates of all ages were considered for the position, however, the
five candidates chosen that were highly qualified for the position just so happen to be under the
age of 40 years old.
While BPIC did not post a full description of the job, all employees were informed of the
job descriptions and we felt as though all employees referred to apply for this position obtained
the necessary qualities and values that would be needed to fulfill the CCS positions. While Mr.
Tavus position was eliminated due to the restructuring. According to the at-will employment
doctrine, BPIC has the right to terminate an employee’s position at any time (Findley, Van
Buskirk, Edwards, &Belcher, 2019). However, we gave Mr. Tavus the opportunity to be
considered for a new position as a CCS despite his lack of qualifications, even though he
obtained the qualifications for regional center manager. Ultimately, Mr. Tavus was not
considered for the promotion due an array of reasons including lack of qualifications, in which
BPIC could not offer him the position due to other individuals being more qualified that could
help the company move into a new direction. Therefore, any evaluation of the company’s hiring
and promotion process will reveal no linkage or presence of discrimination.
References
Findley, H. M., Van Buskirk, D., Edwards, T., & Belcher, W. (2019). Is Discrimination Legal: It
Depends on Your Business. Proceedings of the American Society of Business &
Behavioral Sciences, 26, 219–230.
+
McCann, L. A. (2017, Fall). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act at 50: When Will It Become a
"Real" Civil Rights Statute? ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 33(1), 89+.
Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A583999395/ITOF?
u=vic_liberty&sid=ITOF&xid=9d010127.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P.M. (2017). Human resource management:
Gaining a competitive advantage. (10th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
