Employment Law Analysis

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER

ORDER NOW DISCOUNT CODE >>>> WELCOME40

Individual Paper # 3 Assignment
Employment Law Analysis
Due: April 13
Please write this paper individually and turn it in on D2L and bring a hard copy to class on Friday, 4/13. You are encouraged to talk with others about the paper and/or use the Bracken Business Communications Center for writing assistance, but the work you turn in must be your own. This individual paper is worth 180 points.
 
 
Casey Waterman, a college student looking for an active, fun summer job, saw an advertisement in March on Craigslist seeking applicants for various summer jobs, including several whitewater rafting guides and one administrative assistant position. The ad, which did not contain a list of required qualifications for the jobs, had been placed by Amy Deerfield, the only member and the manager of Amy’s To Go Adventures, LLC (ATGA) in Livingston, Montana. ATGA is an outdoor adventure company that runs rafting, hiking and biking trips in the Paradise Valley and the Absaroka and Beartooth Mountains. ATGA employees 15 people.
 
Casey decided to apply for a job as a whitewater rafting guide at ATGAbecause it would allow her to spend her summer outdoors. Casey, who was 5’6” and weighed 140 lbs, was an avid whitewater rafter although she had never served as a guide before. Casey submitted her resume to ATGA as instructed in the ad, and a few days later received a call from Amy who invited her for an interview. When Casey arrived at the interview, Amy seemed surprised to see her, and asked with a puzzled look and furrowed brow, “you’re Casey?” Casey said that indeed she was, and Amy recovered herself and invited Casey into the office. Amy asked Casey about Casey’s rafting experience, and Casey told her about multiple rafting trips Casey had taken, including on several rivers with Class III and IV rapids, which are difficult and challenging rapids. Amy asked if she had any guiding experience and Casey said that she did not.
 
At the end of the interview, Amy said that she did not have any guide positions open, but offered Casey the administrative assistant job for the summer. The job involved sitting the office all day, taking reservations by phone, checking in customers, making sure all customers had the appropriate equipment for their trip, and checking customers out at the end of the trip. Casey asked about the pay, and was told she would be making $12/hour. Casey was disappointed she could not be a guide, but accepted the job because at least it gave her the opportunity to be involved in the outdoor industry.
 
Casey started the job at ATGA on June 15, and mastered her duties quickly. She liked most of the ATGA employees with whom she worked, all of whom were male, although Lucas, who was her immediate supervisor and the senior rafting guide, aggravated Casey almost from the beginning. He made jokes almost daily about Casey’s looks and clothes, such as “you should wear shorter shorts so you can show off your legs.” Casey tried to ignore him, but he kept at it. During her second week at ATGA Casey asked a young girl who was going on a rafting trip if she needed help adjusting her life jacket, and Lucas said with a leer, “you can adjust my jacket any time!” During the third week, Lucas began repeatedly “accidentally” touching Casey. Casey complained to Amy, who said Lucas didn’t mean any harm and it was just his way of being friendly. Casey told Lucas to leave her alone, but this seemed to just make it worse. As ATGA did not have any written personnel procedures or policies that told Casey what to do about Lucas’ behavior, she again complained to Amy. Amy appeared uninterested in Casey’s complaint. Shedid tell Lucas to quit talking to Amy, but his conduct continued and Amy did nothing more to stop it.
 
By the end of July, Casey quit her job at ATGA because Lucas’ ongoing conduct made her days so unpleasant. After she quit, Casey ran into Rob, one of the river guides,and discovered that the guides, all of whom were male, were paid $15/hour and got to keep all the tips they received from customers, which on some days was $100 or more. Even Rob, who had no guiding experience and had been hired after Casey interviewed with Amy, was making $15/hour plus tips. Casey, as the administrative assistant, did not receive any tips from customers.
 
Upon reflection, and considering Amy’s oddinitial puzzlementwhen she first met Casey in person, Casey began to suspect that Amy may have discriminated against Casey by refusing to hire her as a guide because of her sex, which had a real economic impact on Casey. She also became increasingly upset that Amy had essentially done nothing to stop Lucas’ obnoxious behavior.Angry about her treatment at ATGA, Casey called Amy and the following conversation ensued:
 
CASEY:    Why didn’t you hire me as rafting guide?
AMY:       You weren’t qualified because you had never been a guide before. Plus, I knew the other guides and even some customers would give you a hard time, not believing that you could handle a raft safely because, after all, you don’t look very strong. I thought I’d save us all a lot of trouble if you just worked in the shop instead of as a guide.
CASEY:    Why did you hire Rob as a guide even though he didn’t have guiding experience either?
AMY:       Well, Rob is a big, strong guy and he has experience rafting some very technical rivers so I was confident he could handle the job. Plus, he’s a really nice guy and I knew our customers would like him.
CASEY:    Well, OK, but none of the rivers ATGA takes guests on are very technical and my experience was plenty good enough. Besides, you must have thought that I am good with customers too since you hired me to run the office!
AMY:       That’s not the point! Rob just had more experience than you.
CASEY:    Why didn’t you stop Lucas from harassing me?
AMY:       Oh, he wasn’t harassing you!  That’s just how Lucas is – he doesn’t mean anything by it. But when you complained the second time I did tell Lucas to stop. It’s not my fault that you took his comments so seriously when Lucas was just having some fun.
 
The more Casey thought about the conversation, the angrier she became. Casey wants your analysis of whether you think she has a case against ATGA for discrimination and/or harassment.
 
 
Assignment
Please write a memo to Casey Waterman analyzing:

  1. Is ATGA liable for illegal disparate treatment discrimination against Casey on the basis of Casey’s sex for not hiring Casey for a guide position? (Be sure to list the three burden shifting steps in your Rules section and analyze each legal requirement in your Analysis section.)
  2. Did Lucas sexually harass Casey?
  3. If Lucas did sexually harass Casey, is ATGA liable for the harassment? (Conduct this analysis even if you concluded above that Lucas did not harass Casey.)

 
Analyze each question as a separate issue.  In other words, conduct a separate IRAC analysis for each issue. You don’t need to summarize the facts, although you do, of course, need to use the facts in your legal analysis.
 
Advice

  • Use IRAC headings to indicate where you are in the memo. Not only does this force you to be organized, but it also makes it much easier for me to understand where you are going in your argument (and that will improve your grade).
  • Support your analysis with both the law and the facts.
  • Be sure to discuss the counterargument(s) to your argument and explain why you conclude as you do.
  • I am not asking you to give advice to Casey on what to do next. All your conclusion in each IRAC analysis needs to do is answer the question posed in the issue statement.

 
Please do not:

  • Make up any facts that are not in the scenario above. If you are unsure about how to interpret the facts above, please ask.
  • Look up, discuss, or cite any law outside of what is in your textbook and don’t Google anything – if you do, you are likely to get totally confused and not apply the law correctly.

 
Format and Grading Criteria
This is an individual assignment. You are encouraged to discuss the case with others, but the work you turn in must be in your own words.
 
Format

  • Single-spaced (to save paper)
  • 11-12 pt type, 1” margins
  • 3-4 pages, although you may be able to do it in less

 
Grading
Please see attached rubric. Note that Issue 1 is worth more points than Issues 2 and 3 because the analysis is more complicated. Note also that the quality of your writing is a part of your grade!
 
 
Due Date: Friday, April 13.
 
Please submit to D2L, and bring a hard copy to class.
 
BGEN 361, Paper #3                                                                                       Name: _______________________________
180 points
 

Paper #2 Grading Rubric
D/F Range C Range B Range A Range Pts
ISSUE 1
Issue
5 pts
·   Missing several relevant legal issues
·   Issues are not stated accurately
 
<3 pts
·     Identifies most relevant legal issues
·     Issues are stated unclearly but the basic concepts are correct
3 pts
·   Identifies all relevant legal issues accurately
 
 
 
4 pts
·   Issues stated exceptionally clearly and concisely
 
 
 
5 pts
 
Rules
20 pts
·   Missing most relevant rules
·   Includes mostly irrelevant rules
·   Rules are incorrect
 
< 14 pts
·     Missing one or more key rules
·     Includes several irrelevant rules
·     Several rules are unclear, incomplete or inaccurate
14-15 pts
·   Includes all necessary legal rules
·   May include several unnecessary rules
·   Rules are accurately stated
 
16-17 pts
Exceptionally clear statement of the rules
 
 
 
 
18-20 pts
 
Analysis
35 pts
·   Does not analyze several relevant issues
·   Does not use legal rules in analysis
·   Analysis confusing and hard to understand
·   Does not address counter-arguments
 
 
 
<25 pts
·     Analyzes most issues
·     Alludes to legal rules but does not use them to explain analysis
·     Confused but is basically correct
·     Addresses some counter- arguments
·     Does not effectively explain why one argument is better than another
25-27 pts
·   Accurately and thoroughly analyzes each issue
·   Correctly and effectively uses relevant legal rules
·   Addresses all relevant counter-arguments
·   Explains why one argument is stronger than another
 
 
 
28-31 pts
Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and concise analysis
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32-35 pts
 
Conclusion
10 pts
·   Conclusion is missing
·   Is not legally defensible
·   Does not follow logically from above analysis
 
 
<7 pts
·     Conclusion is unclear
·     Conclusion is legally suspect
·     Conclusion does not clearly follow from legal analysis
 
 
7 pts
·   Concisely states legal conclusion
·   Conclusion is legally defensible
·   Conclusion follows logically from analysis
8 pts
Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and concise
 
 
 
 
9-10 pts
 
ISSUE 2
Issue
5 pts
·   Missing several relevant legal issues
·   Issues are not stated accurately
 
<3 pts
·     Identifies most relevant legal issues
·     Issues are stated unclearly but the basic concepts are correct
3 pts
·   Identifies all relevant legal issues accurately
 
 
 
4 pts
·   Issues stated exceptionally clearly and concisely
 
 
 
5 pts
 
Rules
10 pts
·   Missing most relevant rules
·   Includes mostly irrelevant rules
·   Rules are incorrect
 
<7 pts
·     Missing one or more key rules
·     Includes several irrelevant rules
·     Several rules are unclear, incomplete or inaccurate
7 pts
·   Includes all necessary legal rules
·   May include several unnecessary rules
·   Rules are accurately stated
 
8 pts
Exceptionally clear statement of the rules
 
 
 
 
9-10 pts
 
Analysis
20 pts
·   Does not analyze several relevant issues
·   Does not use legal rules in analysis
·   Analysis confusing and hard to understand
·   Does not address counter-arguments
 
 
 
<14 pts
·     Analyzes most issues
·     Alludes to legal rules but does not use them to explain analysis
·     Confused but is basically correct
·     Addresses some counter- arguments
·     Does not effectively explain why one argument is better than another
14-15 pts
·   Accurately and thoroughly analyzes each issue
·   Correctly and effectively uses relevant legal rules
·   Addresses all relevant counter-arguments
·   Explains why one argument is stronger than another
 
 
 
16-17 pts
Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and concise analysis
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18-20 pts
 
Conclusion
5 pts
·   Conclusion is missing
·   Is not legally defensible
·   Does not follow logically from above analysis
 
 
<3 pts
·     Conclusion is unclear
·     Conclusion is legally suspect
·     Conclusion does not clearly follow from legal analysis
 
 
3pts
·   Concisely states legal conclusion
·   Conclusion is legally defensible
·   Conclusion follows logically from analysis
4 pts
Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and concise
 
 
 
 
5 pts
 
ISSUE 3
Issue
5 pts
·   Missing several relevant legal issues
·   Issues are not stated accurately
 
<3 pts
·     Identifies most relevant legal issues
·     Issues are stated unclearly but the basic concepts are correct
3 pts
·   Identifies all relevant legal issues accurately
 
 
 
4 pts
·   Issues stated exceptionally clearly and concisely
 
 
 
5 pts
 
Rules
10 pts
·   Missing most relevant rules
·   Includes mostly irrelevant rules
·   Rules are incorrect
 
<7 pts
·     Missing one or more key rules
·     Includes several irrelevant rules
·     Several rules are unclear, incomplete or inaccurate
7 pts
·   Includes all necessary legal rules
·   May include several unnecessary rules
·   Rules are accurately stated
 
8 pts
Exceptionally clear statement of the rules
 
 
 
 
9-10pts
 
Analysis
20 pts
·   Does not analyze several relevant issues
·   Does not use legal rules in analysis
·   Analysis confusing and hard to understand
·   Does not address counter-arguments
 
 
 
<14 pts
·     Analyzes most issues
·     Alludes to legal rules but does not use them to explain analysis
·     Confused but is basically correct
·     Addresses some counter- arguments
·     Does not effectively explain why one argument is better than another
14-15 pts
·   Accurately and thoroughly analyzes each issue
·   Correctly and effectively uses relevant legal rules
·   Addresses all relevant counter-arguments
·   Explains why one argument is stronger than another
 
 
 
16-17 pts
Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and concise analysis
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18-20 pts
 
Conclusion
5 pts
·   Conclusion is missing
·   Is not legally defensible
·   Does not follow logically from above analysis
 
 
<3 pts
·     Conclusion is unclear
·     Conclusion is legally suspect
·     Conclusion does not clearly follow from legal analysis
 
 
3 pts
·   Concisely states legal conclusion
·   Conclusion is legally defensible
·   Conclusion follows logically from analysis
4 pts
Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and concise
 
 
 
 
5pts
 
Writing & Format
Writing
25 pts
·   Paragraphs generally lacktopic sentence, support, and concluding sentence
·   Frequent errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar
·   Sentences are consistently awkward
·   Tone is overly informal
·   Errors interfere with communication
 
 
< 18 pts
·  Some paragraphs include topic sentence, support, and concluding sentence
·  Excessively wordy
·  Multiple errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar
·  Many sentences are awkward
·  Tone is occasionally too informal
·  Errors do not substantially interfere with communication
 
18-19 pts
·    Most paragraphs include clear topic sentence, support, and concluding sentence
·    Concise
·    Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation and/or grammar
·   Sentences are occasionally awkward
·   Tone is generally professional
·   Errors do not substantially interfere with communication
 
 
 
20-22 pts
·   All paragraphs include good topic sentence, support and concluding sentence
·   No errors in spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar
·   Sentences are consistently concise and well-constructed
·   Sentence structure is varied
·   Tone is consistently professional
23-25 pts
 
Format
5 pts
Does not follow instructions
0-2 pt
Follows most instructions
 
3-4 pts
  Follows all instructions
 
5 pts
 
TOTAL POINTS  
 
F D Range C Range B Range A Range
< 117 total points 117-125 total points 126-143 total points 144-161 total points 162-180 total points

 
 
 

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER

ORDER NOW DISCOUNT CODE >>>> WELCOME40

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized