Devry HRM 593 Final Exam Latest

$50

Quantity:

Description

Devry HRM 593 Final Exam Latest

 

Question 1 30 pts

(TCO A) Bob has worked for Acme, Inc. for 10 years. During the entire period of Bob’s employment, his performance had never been formally evaluated or criticized; he was never denied a raise or bonus. The company was doing extremely well, constantly hiring new employees. During the busiest time of the year, Bob told his boss that he required surgery. Bob went out on approved FMLA. Bob was terminated when he returned to work. Even though the term of Bob’s employment is not specified by contract, does Bob have a cause of action against his employer arising out of the termination? Identify and analyze the possible causes of action available to Bob and the likelihood of prevailing in the litigation. Utilize applicable law to support your conclusions.

Question 2 30 pts

(TCO B) Mary Smith was an employee of Thomas Contracts, a pipeline construction company. Mary was supervised by H.D.Thomas, son of the owner of the business. She became involved in an affair with Thomas, who was married. Thomas ended the affair and subsequently fired Mary based on her performance since the affair began. Mary filed a suit against Thomas Contracts, alleging that her discharge was due to gender discrimination, sex discrimination, and in violation of Title VII. Analyze and determine whether she succeeded. Identify and explain the applicable law and statutory authority in conjunction with the facts in the scenario to support your conclusion.

Question 3 30 pts

(TCO C) Carla Miller worked as a promotions director for a radio station owned by Dilner, Inc. Miller used a company van in her work, which required her to organize promotional events in bars and nightclubs. Dilner issued a memorandum to all employees prohibiting consumption of alcoholic beverages while at company events; violation of the policy was grounds for discharge.

In May 1994, Mark Lang became Miller’s supervisor. One month prior to that date, Miller missed one day of work, explaining that she had been out late drinking the night before. The incident was noted in her file. Lang was aware of the entry in her file; he was particularly sensitive to issues of drug and alcohol abuse because he had received treatment himself for chemical dependency.About a year later, management became suspicious that Miller had driven the company van after drinking. Management hired a private investigator, Samuels, to follow her. On June 6, 1995, Samuels observed Miller drinking at several bars and then driving away in the van. He also observed her drinking with some of the station’s advertising clients two days later. Miller, who weighed about 250 lbs, admitted that she had about five drinks over the course of six hours, during which time she had also consumed food. Samuels called Lang when Miller left the bar. Lang demanded the keys, which Miller surrendered to him.

The next day, Miller was informed that her actions on the previous night were reason for termination. Miller was offered the opportunity to enroll in a chemical dependency treatment program due to the possibility that she might be an alcoholic. Miller was informed that she could complete the program with no loss in pay, or she would be fired. She rejected the treatment and was fired.She sued Dilner and the ADA, alleging that Dilner fired her because it regarded her as an alcoholic. In applying applicable law to the scenario, determine how the court ruled in her case. Forecast the outcome and set forth the analysis and breakdown for your conclusion, utilizing applicable case law and statutory authority in your response.

Question 4 30 pts

(TCO D) A house-moving company was moving a house and came close to three 7,200 volt power lines. Fire was observed where the house’s lighting rod came too close to one of the power lines. Two employees were electrocuted and three more were injured.Analyzing the fact pattern, determine whether the company violated OSHA’s general duty clause, or if this was merely an unfortunate accident. Assuming that passing close to the wires was unavoidable, identify the steps that the company might have taken to avoid the tragedy.

Question 5 30 pts

(TCO E) Julie is a fruit picker and has worked for the same company for three years. Between April and June 2005, she, along with 300 other fruit pickers, worked at this company. The workers, including Julie, worked an average of 40 hours per week, five days per week, during the entire three-month period. Beginning in July, 2005, the workers were required to work a minimum of 55 hours per week. The workers were not paid overtime for the hours worked in excess of 40.

Identify and analyze the possible claims that Julie has against her employer. Identify and evaluate the legal basis for the claim, the potential recovery, and the likelihood of prevailing against her employer.

Question 6 30 pts

(TCO F) The trustee of an ERISA-qualified plan, and also a participant in the plan, denied a discretionary payment of a lump-sum accrued benefit to a participant who had terminated his employment. The participant sues, claiming the denial of the discretionary payment is self-dealing. Determine whether the participant will prevail. Articulate the basis for your conclusion, using applicable case law and statutory authority.

Question 7 30 pts

(TCO G) In response to the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the Department of Labor (DOL) instituted its Drug-Free Workplace Plan, which designated certain DOL positions as sensitive in regard to public health and safety or national security. Employees in these positions, called “testing-designated positions,” could be subject to drug testing, including testing based on a reasonable suspicion of on-duty or off-duty drug use. The American Federation of Government Employees sought to enjoin this type of testing. The plan is being challenged. Identify and explain the legal basis for the challenge and determine whether the DOL’s plan will hold up in court. Utilize applicable law in your analysis and assessment.

Question 8 30 pts

(TCO H) A & Z, Co. had a workplace policy of prohibiting the hiring of family members of current employees. On a number of occasions, however, the male children of current male employees had been hired, but no female children had ever been hired, even though many applied. Also, no children, male or female, of any current female employee, had ever been hired, even though, again, many had applied.

The female child of a current male employee files a lawsuit. Determine the legal basis for the claim and assess the likelihood of prevailing against A & Z, Co. From an employer perspective, what suggestions would you make in terms of best practices to minimize future legal liability? Utilize applicable law in your response.

 

DeVry Courses helps in providing the best essay writing service. If you need 100% original papers for Devry HRM 593 Final Exam Latest, then contact us through call or live chat.

Devry HRM 593 Final Exam Latest

Best Devry HRM 593 Final Exam Latest

Devry HRM 593 Final Exam Latest