HRM 593 WEEK 8 FINAL EXAM VERSION 2 (Best price and Top Grade

Guaranteed)

Click the link below

http://clubessays.com/Solved/product/hrm-593-week-8-final-exam-
version-2-best-price-and-top-grade-guaranteed/
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
employees.........The 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)