HRA 545 Case Assignment 2

HRA 545 Case Assignment 2

Read each case scenario and analyze using the IRAC method.
Submit the assignment to the Dropbox no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 2. (This Dropbox basket is linked to Turnitin.)

Case #3

In July 1994 Elvis R. Stewart, an African American, began
working for the McDonald’s restaurant located inside the Wal-Mart store on
Benson Boulevard in Anchorage, Alaska. Stewart’s shift was from 7:30 p.m. until
closing, the time of which varied. Stewart also worked at Taco Bell. Stewart’s
shift at Taco Bell was from 11:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. In order to work both
shifts, Stewart carried a change of clothes and personal items in a duffel-type
bag. He would change out of his Taco Bell uniform, and into his McDonald’s
uniform, in the Wal-Mart bathroom. He used the Wal-Mart bathroom, instead of
the Taco Bell bathroom, because it was larger and less crowded with customers.

Wal-Mart had a nationwide policy of stationing a member of
its management team at its exits to check for receipts of purchases made by
Wal-Mart and McDonald’s employees, and to check for stolen items that might be
concealed in their personal bags. Management conducted the checks before
employees left the store at the end of their shifts.

According to Stewart, sometime during his third week of
employment, Hardy stopped him as he was exiting McDonald’s at the end of his
shift. Hardy asked to search Stewart’s bag, and then proceeded to dump the
contents of Stewart’s bag onto the counter and look through it. According to
Stewart, this type of bag search continued until mid-February 1995. Steward
testified that he routinely objected to the searches.

Stewart asked Hardy whether he searched certain people
because they were black. Hardy answered yes.

Question: Were the searches motivated by race
discrimination? Explain.

Case #4

Elizabeth Salsbury, a speech language pathologist employed
by SunDance, was notified by letter from SunDance dated February 26, 1999, that
the company was compelled to reduce its workforce and that Salsbury’s job would
be terminated effective March 1, 1999. The letter informed Salsbury that she
would receive 80 hours’ worth of severance pay after signing a separation
agreement and general release.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: HRA 545 Case Assignment 2 

A provision of the agreement stated, “This Release and
covenant not to sue also expressly, and without any limitation of the foregoing
General Release, includes bot is not limited to any claims which Releasor may
have or may assert under federal or state law prohibiting employment
discrimination and claims growing out of any legal restrictions on the rights
of Company to terminate its employees, whether statutory or arising under
common law, including without limitations: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Releasor on behalf of herself and
other releasers expressly agrees that she will not institute, commence,
prosecute or otherwise pursue any proceeding, action, complaint, claim, charge
or grievance against Company or any other released parties in any
administrative, judicial or other forum whatsoever with respect to any acts or
events occurring prior to the date hereof in the course of Releasor’s dealing
with Releasee.”

Salsbury decided not to sign the Separation Agreement.

Question: Can severance pay be given conditional to the
employee’s promise to forego proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act? Explain.

?

Case #5

Howard Saari was employed by Smith Barney, Harris Upham
& Co., Inc., as an account executive beginning in July 1988. He alleges
that his work was satisfactory at all times. According to Saari’s complaint, on
or about December 14, 1988, a “sum of money, supposedly belonging to a client
of Smith Barney, was supposedly stolen from the desk of a Smith Barney
employee.” Saari alleged he was questioned about the theft and was later asked
to take a polygraph test concerning the incident, which he refused. Saari
claims he was then terminated for his refusal to take the polygraph
examination.

Saari became a registered representative of the NYSE and
thereby subject to its Rule 347, which provides that “Any controversy between a
registered representative and any member or member organization arising out of
the employment or termination of employment of such registered representative
by and with such member or member organization shall be settled by
arbitration.”

Saari contends that the enforcement provisions of the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act show no such flexibility.

Question: Is the arbitration requirement in violation of the
EPPA? Explain.

Read Also:  GVPT 406 week 3 discussion