Overview In this assignment, you evaluate and assess workplace protection legislation, identify the ...
Overview In this assignment, you evaluate and assess workplace protection legislation, identify the law pursuant to the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine and legal exceptions, apply this understanding to a business scenario, and explain legal requirements for hiring new employees and your own home state laws as to workers' compensation and immigration. Instructions Respond to the following in 4–6 pages: Cite two federal laws that you believe are the most important for protecting employees from workplace discrimination. Provide a compelling argument for the effectiveness of the legislation in protecting employees and two case law examples to support your assessment. Explain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States. Some states do not allow undocumented workers, or those not legally allowed to work in the United States, to receive workers' compensation benefits. Provide the law in your home state and a compelling and supported (with research) argument advocating for or against your state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. Provide a comprehensive summary of the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine that includes all possible legal exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination. Cite and support (with research) an appropriate EAW exception that the employee in each of the following scenarios could reasonably argue to save their job. Scenario 1: JoAnn, a manager, started a blog on the company website for employee grievances and problems. She noticed that a worker was protesting that allegedly no Asian American employees had gotten a raise in two years at the company. Christine, the employee, also criticized how much CEO Elon had made last year and how he was "out of touch" with the realities of his employees. JoAnn reminded Christine that she was an employee-at-will. The next day, Christine talked to her fellow co-workers about forming a union. JoAnn fired Christine, and Christine is suing for wrongful termination. Scenario 2: Steven, a department supervisor, fired his secretary, Ann. Ann, a devout Christian, had been putting Right-to-Life flyers in the employee breakroom. Steven talked to Ann twice and reiterated her actions were not appropriate. Ann continued to leave the pamphlets and was also taking time away from work to pray at her desk during the busiest times of the morning. Ann is suing for wrongful termination. Requirements 4–6 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), with 1-inch margins on all sides. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student's name, the professor's name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the Sources list are not included in the required assignment page length. Resources Use the Strayer Library to conduct your research. Include at least three quality references. The textbook for this class is a required source for this assignment. This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the Library site for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is as follows: Evaluate federal law relative to workplace discrimination, employment-at-will, or worker's compensation eligibility. View Rubric Week 10 Assignment - The Value of Fair Treatment in the Workplace Week 10 Assignment - The Value of Fair Treatment in the Workplace Criteria Ratings Pts Provide a compelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees. Cite case law to support your assessment. (15%) 30 to >26.99 pts Exemplary Provides a compelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees. Cites case law to support the assessment. 26.99 to >23.99 pts Competent Provides a compelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees but fails to sufficiently cite case law to support the assessment. 23.99 to >20.99 pts Needs Improvement Provides an uncompelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees or cites case law that is not applicable. 20.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable Does not provide an argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees. / 30 pts Explain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States. (10%) 20 to >17.99 pts Exemplary Explains the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States. 17.99 to >15.99 pts Competent Explains the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States with 1–2 significant errors or omissions. 15.99 to >13.99 pts Needs Improvement Explains the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States with 3–4 significant errors or omissions. 13.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable Does not explain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment or does so with more than 4 significant errors or omissions. / 20 pts Provide a compelling and supported (with research) argument advocating for or against a state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. (15%) 30 to >26.99 pts Exemplary Provides a compelling and supported (with research) argument advocating for or against a state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. 26.99 to >23.99 pts Competent Provides a compelling argument advocating for or against a state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers but provides no supporting research. 23.99 to >20.99 pts Needs Improvement Provides an uncompelling and unsupported argument advocating for or against a state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. 20.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable Does not provide an argument advocating for or against a state's practice of allowing or denying workers' compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. / 30 pts Provide a comprehensive summary of employment-at-will doctrine that includes all possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination. (10%) 20 to >17.99 pts Exemplary Provides a comprehensive summary of employment-at-will doctrine that includes all possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination. 17.99 to >15.99 pts Competent Provides a comprehensive summary of employment-at-will doctrine but omits all possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination. 15.99 to >13.99 pts Needs Improvement Provides a an incomplete summary of employment-at-will doctrine and possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination. 13.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable Does not provide a summary of employment-at-will doctrine. / 20 pts Cite and support an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1. (15%) 30 to >26.99 pts Exemplary Cites and supports an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1. 26.99 to >23.99 pts Competent Cites an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1 but offers only weak support. 23.99 to >20.99 pts Needs Improvement Cites an inappropriate EAW exception that an employee could not reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1. 20.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable Does not cite an EAW exception that an employee could argue to save their job in Scenario 1. / 30 pts Cite and support an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2. (15%) 30 to >26.99 pts Exemplary Cites and supports an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2. 26.99 to >23.99 pts Competent Cites an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2 but offers only weak support. 23.99 to >20.99 pts Needs Improvement Cites an inappropriate EAW exception that an employee could not reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2. 20.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable Does not cite an EAW exception that an employee could argue to save their job in Scenario 2. / 30 pts Include at least three references, including the required textbook, as sources for the paper. (10%) 20 to >17.99 pts Exemplary Exceeds number of required references; all references are high quality choices. 17.99 to >15.99 pts Competent Meets number of required references; some references are high quality choices. 15.99 to >13.99 pts Needs Improvement Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references are poor quality choices. 13.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable No references provided. / 20 pts Clarity, writing mechanics, and SWS formatting requirements. (10%) 20 to >17.99 pts Exemplary 0–2 errors present. 17.99 to >15.99 pts Competent 3–4 errors present. 15.99 to >13.99 pts Needs Improvement 5–6 errors present. 13.99 to >0 pts Unacceptable More than 6 errors present. / 20 pts Total Points: 0 Choose a submission type Select submission type TextText Select submission type UploadUpload
