HRM 593 WEEK 8 FINAL EXAM

VERSION 2

Purchase here

http://www.homeworkcourse.com/shop/hrm-593-week-
8-final-exam-version-2/

Product Description

HRM 593 WEEK 8 FINAL EXAM VERSION 2

1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the
entire period of Nixs 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, Nix
told his boss that he had jury duty. Nix attended jury duty. Nix was
terminated for refusing to decline to appear for jury duty. Even
though the term of Nixs employment is not specified by contract,
does Nix have a cause of action against his employer arising out of
 the termination? Identify and analyze the possible causes of
action available to Nix and the likelihood of prevailing in the
litigation. Utilize applicable law to support your conclusions.
(Points: 30)

2. (TCO B) Denora Sarin, a Cambodian immigrant and a practicing

Buddhist, was employed as a systems engineer with Raytheon
Company. Shortly after Sarin was assigned to work on a particular
project, Goldberg, one of the workers, approached and taunted
Sarin saying, Whats Buddhism? What kind of Buddha do you
worshipthe skinny Buddha or the fat one? I want to fight you.
You dont fight me back. Sarin also claimed to be physically
harassed by another employee, but after Sarin reported the
conduct to his supervisor, it was not repeated.

3. (TCO C) Matt worked for CTE as a management analyst. Matt

suffered a heart attack and took medical leave from his job. Prior
to the heart attack, his supervisor opened his locked drawer at
work and found prescription drugs that were not prescribed to
Matt. The supervisor thought Matt had been acting a bit strangely
but decided he would confront him about it later. The supervisor
did not confront Matt before the heart attack.After six
months, Matt was able to return to work on a part-time basis.
Matt worked reduced hours for the next year. CTE was forced to
reduce its workforce to cut costs. CTE conducted a performance
appraisal of all managerial employees and discharged those with
the lowest performance ratings. Matt, because of his part-time
status, had one of the lowest performance ratings. The company
did not look at performance pro-rata based on hours worked.
Matt sued and alleged that he was wrongfully terminated in
 violation of the ADA. Matt alleged that his termination was a
result of his disability. Identify and analyze the potential claims
and defenses. Utilize case law to support your responses and
conclusions.(Points: 30)

4. (TCO D) A wrecking and heavy moving firm was moving a barn. As

the barn was being towed across a field, it came close to three
7,200 volt power lines. A ball of fire was observed where the
barns lighting rod either came to close to or actually touched,
one of the power lines. Two employees were electrocuted and
three more were injured. Analyzing the fact pattern, determine
whether the company violated OSHAs general duty clause, or was
this 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. (Points: 30)

5. (TCO E) Jerry Swanson owned Swanson Custom Cabinets. He

works exclusively for Custom Kitchen Designs, Inc., building all of
the cabinets for their clients. Mr. Swanson was injured on the job
and filed a workers compensation claim which listed Custom
Kitchen Designs as his employer. Based upon the foregoing, will
Mr. Swanson be deemed an employee or an independent
contractor? Analyze the fact pattern in conjunction with the legal
factors that impact the employee versus independent contractor
determination. Determine and explain the implications of this
determination on Mr. Swansons workers compensation claim.
Incorporate applicable law as you analyze and interpret the
scenario in conjunction with the legal elements of the claims.
6. (TCO F) The retirees were employed by White Farms while the
company was an affiliate of the White Motor Corporation. The
dispute concerned the White Motor Corporation Insurance Plan
for Salaried Employees, a non-funded, noncontributory benefit
plan that provided life, health, and welfare insurance, prescription
drugs, hearing aid benefits, and dental care to retirees and their
eligible dependents. White Motor employees periodically
received booklets describing their benefits under these
plans..The 1980 booklet described insurance provided and
carried the explicit disclaimer that it was not the contract of
insurance. The booklet differentiated between different
categories of salaried employees and appeared to have been
prepared for distribution to both active and retired
employeesThe 1985 booklet was addressed specifically to
retired employees. Much of the information in the booklet made
no distinction between the Welfare Benefit Plan and the Pension
Plan, and its summary of an alleged cancellation clause referred to
both plans:The Company fully intends to continue your
plans indefinitely. However, the Company does reserve the right
to change the Plans, and, if necessary to discontinue them. If it is
necessary to discontinue the Pension Plan, the assets of the
Pension Fund will be used to provide benefits according to the
Plan document..No similar clause appeared in the
1980booklet..While the company was undergoing court
supervised reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code, it decided to discontinue its noncontributory insurance
coverage for its retired employees..On the basis of the facts
presented, assess whether the company is free to discontinue its
 noncontributory insurance coverage for its retired employees.
Explain your conclusion and use applicable law to support your
response.

7. (TCO G) Gomez, the hiring manager at a Sizzler restaurant in

Arizona, extended an offer to Rodriquez after having a
long-distance telephone conversation with him while Rodriquez
was in California working for a Sizzler restaurant there. On
Rodriquezs arrival, Gomez asked to see evidence of Rodriquezs
authorization to work in the United States. Rodriquez offered a
drivers license and what looked like a Social Security card. Gomez
did not look at the back of the card nor compare it to the example
in the Immigration and Naturalization handbook. In fact,
Rodriquezs card was a forgery, and the INS has assessed a fine
against Sizzler restaurant, claiming that Gomez knew or should
have known that the card was false. Determine whether Sizzler is
liable under the IRCA. Identify and integrate applicable law and
statutory authority to provide validity for your response. (Points:
30)

8. (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 have 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. (Points: 30)