TEAM – Employment Law Case Brief and Presentation3

TEAM – Employment Law Case Brief and Presentation

    • Due May 23, 11:59 PM
    • Not Submitted
    • POINTS 8
  •  Team Presentation
  • no new messagesObjectives: 
    • 5.1
    • 5.2

      

    • Instructions
    • Assignment Files
    • Grading

      

Read “The IRAC method of case study analysis” found in the Week 5 Electronic Reserve Readings.

Select one legal case from the following list and discuss the case with your Learning Team. 

  • Case 21.3 Staub v. Proctor Hospital 

Write a case brief using the IRAC method.

Create an 8- to 10-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation in which your team members summarize how the legal concepts in the selected case can be applied within a business managerial setting. 

Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.

Remember, both a brief and presentation are due.

Here is the case breif on;y the power point needed

Message expanded.Message readIRAC Case Briefposted by Matt , May 22, 2016, 4:18 PM   

Hi Team,

Please find an IRAC case brief, below. Feel free to make revisions to any and all sections. This is intended to be a first draft and discussion starter.

Mirian – were you able to determine if we need to submit (1) a case brief and presentation or (2) just a presentation?

Thanks,

Matt

Case: STAUB v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL

Issue: Can an employer be held liable for employment discrimination based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision?

Rule: Judgment as a matter of law; USERRA; “Cat’s Paw” Theory of Discrimination

Analysis: Petitioner Vincent Staub was discriminated against by his boss (Mulally) and Mulally’s boss (Korenchuk). Both of Staub’s superiors were hostile against his military service and wanted to end this position with the company. Staub’s job is protected under USEERA. Mulally and Korenchuk influenced the company’s VP of HR and COO to fire Staub. The company is liable for employer discrimination. Although the VP of HR and COO did not discriminate against Staub, the basis for firing Staub was discriminatory. Mulally and Korechuck wanted Staub terminated based on discriminatory reasons and they influenced the termination decision.

“The employer is at fault because one of its agents committed an action based on discriminatory animus that was intended to cause, and did in fact cause, an adverse employment decision. . . . motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA” (Reed et al., 2013, p. 700).

Conclusion: The employer may be held liable for employment discrimination under USERRA because its agents intended to discriminate. The person who actually fired the employee is of no consequence.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/06/jn.aspx

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/manual/3-3-b_rule_50.cfm

 

Words: 299

Posted in Uncategorized