2
TAVUS VS BPIC
Disparate Treatment- The Tavus vs BPIC Case
Question 1: Prepare a written report that presents a convincing disparate treatment claim
that Gus had been intentionally discriminated against based on his age. Do not address the
claim as one of disparate impact.
This report formally addresses the case of Mr. Gus Tavus, aged fifty-two, whose recent
termination from the role of Regional Center Manager at The Best Protection Insurance
Company warrants investigation. Mr. Tavus was entrusted with significant responsibilities,
overseeing supervisors and claims specialists, and maintained a direct reporting line to the Vice
President of Regional Claims, who subsequently reported to the Senior Vice President of
Corporate Claims. The inquiry aims to ascertain whether Mr. Tavus's age was a factor in his
dismissal.
BPIC has initiated a restructuring of its claims function, resulting in the dissolution of the
four regional offices and the Regional Claims Manager (RCM) role. This strategic move has led
to the establishment of five new Corporate Claims Specialist (CCS) positions, which are
advanced iterations of the former roles, necessitating elevated qualifications and expertise. BPIC
is seeking to fill these positions internally and has invited all former RCMs, including Mr. Tavus,
to submit their applications.
The recent promotional decisions within the company have raised concerns among the
Regional Case Managers (RCMs). Despite their qualifications and experience, none of the
RCMs, including Mr. Tavus, were considered for the new Claims and Supervision positions.
Notably, all RCMs and other applicants for the new Customer Claims Specialist (CCS) roles
share a common attribute of being over 40 years old. This has led to allegations of age-based
3
TAVUS VS BPIC
disparate treatment, which warrants a thorough investigation to ensure compliance with
employment equity standards.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 clearly prohibits
discrimination based on age for individuals who are forty years and older. As outlined by Judge
and Kammeyer-Mueller (2021), it is illegal for employers to make employment decisions based
on an individual's age regarding hiring, firing, compensation, or other terms and conditions of
employment. This law extends beyond the mere prohibition of age discrimination. The authors
elaborate that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) expressly prohibits
employers from engaging in practices that limit, segregate, or classify employees in ways that
would deprive them, or tend to deprive them, of employment opportunities or negatively impact
their status due to age (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2021). Mr. Tavus contends that his
circumstances reflect a breach of this act. The attorney overseeing this case is inclined to agree,
which has prompted the drafting of this report.
Age discrimination in the workplace is a significant issue that can manifest in various
forms, such as limited training opportunities, promotion denials, and involuntary terminations
that disproportionately affect older employees (Harootyan, 2021). The examination of the case
reveals factors indicative of potential age discrimination. Firstly, Mr. Tavus's membership in a
legally protected class is evident due to his age, which is over forty, implicating protections
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Despite the increasing presence of
individuals aged thirty-five and above in our workforce, there is a palpable sense of frustration
and uncertainty among this demographic. This is attributable to prevailing discriminatory
attitudes towards age, which not only undermine the value of experience but also hinder the
inclusive growth of our professional environments (HRMID, 2019). Secondly, Mr. Tavus's prior
4
TAVUS VS BPIC
role as an RCM, coupled with the invitation from BPIC to apply for the CSS position,
demonstrates his qualifications for the role. Thirdly, despite these qualifications, Mr. Tavus was
not promoted to CSS. Lastly, the subsequent offers to younger individuals raise concerns
regarding the fairness and legality of BPIC's promotion practices.
It has become clear that there is a discernible pattern of age discrimination. The
promotion procedure was exclusively managed by the SVPCC and the two MCCs, completely
bypassing the VPRC and HR's involvement. The absence of a formal job description and internal
job posting process is evident. Selection was limited to RCMs and other individuals from a pre-
selected list, which included Mr. Tavus, indicating a biased approach. The personnel file
examination revealed no indication that Mr. Tavus was lacking in necessary skills for the CSS
role. His record as an exemplary employee with consistently high appraisal ratings stands
unchallenged.
Finally, a formal interview with the VPRC revealed that he was not involved in the
promotion process regarding Mr. Tavus' qualifications and was utterly surprised when Mr. Tavus
did not receive a promotion. With this evidence and plea, Mr. Tavus implores the court to
acknowledge the occurrence of disparate treatment rooted in age discrimination and to hold
BPIC accountable.
Question 2: Present a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate
treatment claim.
The Best Protection Insurance Company stands by its commitment to fair and equitable
treatment of all employees, regardless of age. BPIC asserts that the circumstances surrounding
Mr. Tavus' position have been misconstrued and is prepared to provide a detailed account to
5
TAVUS VS BPIC
clarify any misunderstandings. The organization is dedicated to upholding a respectful and
inclusive workplace environment for its diverse workforce. BPIC maintains that the allegations
of age discrimination raised by Mr. Tavus are unfounded.
In the corporate world, restructuring is a common strategy to adapt to changing business
needs. BPIC's decision to eliminate the regional center manager position in favor of a new
claims’ specialist role reflects such a strategic shift. This move, aimed at streamlining operations
and promoting internal talent, underscores the company's focus on efficiency and growth. While
such changes can be challenging, they are often necessary for a company to remain competitive
and responsive to the market's demands.
In the process of filling new CSS positions, BPIC engaged in a selection procedure that
involved compiling a list of potential candidates internally, requesting formal applications from
RCMs and other employees, and evaluating all applicants based on their qualifications and past
performance. The exclusion of the VPRC from interviews was a deliberate decision to prevent
bias, which was a factor due to working with Mr. Tavus for years. The promotions were offered
to five individuals from the regional centers, all under the age of forty, which led to legal
concerns raised by Mr. Tavus regarding possible age-related disparate treatment. BPIC conveys
that the age of the individuals was not considered during the promotion process.
According to Farmer (2019), disparate impact law serves as a crucial tool for addressing
unintentional discrimination in the workplace. It allows individuals to seek legal recourse when a
neutral policy disproportionately affects a certain group, without the need to demonstrate
intentional bias. This legal concept is particularly significant in protecting older workers in the
United States from age discrimination. Employers must show that any age-based differentiation
is essential for the job or is based on factors other than age to avoid liability.
6
TAVUS VS BPIC
BPIC understands that in employment and hiring practices, it is crucial to ensure that
decisions are made based on merit and qualifications rather than age or other protected
characteristics. The RCMs served well in their positions for years, we appreciate their
contributions to this company. BPIC asserts that the age of the candidates was not a factor in
their promotion decisions. BPIC promoted individuals who were perceived to have the technical
and communication skills needed to be successful in the new CSS positions. BPIC asserts that
the courts should not punish BPIC for an accusation that is based solely on perception and
assumption.
7
TAVUS VS BPIC
References
Farmer, K. (2019). Outsiders Need Not Apply: Myopic Appellate Interpretations of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act Insulate Prospective Employers from Disparate Impact
Liability. Southern Law Journal,29(2), 255-280.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/outsiders-need-not-apply-myopic-appellate/docview/2358404747/se-2
Harootyan, B. (2021). Hidden dimensions of ageism in employment and the weakening of the
age discrimination in employment act.The Public Policy and Aging Report,31(4), 129-
132. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prab020
The impact of age norms and discrimination in employment markets: Psychological factors
influencing midlife workers' career mobility choices. (2019).HHuman Resource Management
International Digest,27(3), 17-19.Hhttps://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-03-2019-0076
Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2021). Staffing Organizations (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill
Higher Education (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781264072590
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
