I want it to be done in IRAC way that is why I added the second doc.

I want it to be done in IRAC way that is why I added the second doc.
SEX DISCRIMINATION SCENARIO Annabel Nevins works for a large corporation and is responsible for soliciting contracts and then providing services to the customers she has solicited. She has been with the company for five years and has been very successful both in the number of contracts she has brought to the company and in the satisfaction of her customers. In August, 2018 Ms. Nevins applied for a promotion to Chief Account Executive, which would be the next step up in management and would require her to supervise ten (10) additional staff. Her immediate supervisor has recommended her to the company Promotion Committee. There are twenty-five partners on the Promotion Committee, five of whom are women. In recommending her for promotion, her supervisor noted that Ms. Nevins’ performance has been outstanding and that she has played a key role in the consistent successful performance of her department. He went on to state that he did not believe any of the other candidates being considered for promotion had a comparable record to Ms. Nevins. The company had five promotion opportunities available and one other woman was considered apart from Ms. Nevins. The company denied Ms. Nevins’ promotion request. It did promote the other woman who applied. Ms. Nevins’ supervisor discussed with her the reasons and provided guidance on what she could do to increase her chances for promotion in the future. He explained that the Promotion Committee praised her character as well as her accomplishments, describing her as “an outstanding professional” who had a “deft touch,” a “strong character, independence and integrity.” Clients appear to have agreed with these assessments. The supervisor explained, however, that Ms. Nevins’ aggressiveness apparently spilled over into abrasiveness. He “indicated that she was sometimes overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with, and impatient with staff.” One partner described her as “macho”, another suggested that she “overcompensated for being a woman”, a third advised her to take “a course at charm school.” Several partners criticized her use of profanity; in response, one partner suggested that those partners objected to her swearing only “because it’s a lady using foul language.” Ms. Nevins’ supervisor suggested that she “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” He explained that it would aid in her chances for promotion in the future. Ms. Nevins believes that she was denied promotion based on her sex (gender). 1. Explain the process should Ms. Nevins want to file an employment discrimination complaint. 2. Explain why the denial of promotion is employment discrimination. 3. Explain why the denial of promotion is not employment discrimination. 4. Do you think the denial of promotion is employment discrimination? Why/why not.
I want it to be done in IRAC way that is why I added the second doc.
BBA 329 EXAM RUBRIC EXCELLENT TO GOOD BASIC IMPROVEMENT NEEDED OVERALL ORGANIZATION [FIVE (5) POINTS] A 1. All the questions are fully answered; 2. The information is clearly and logically presented; 3. Each position is clearly explained and thought provoking; 4. Paragraphs are skillfully organized and add to the development of ideas. 5. All questions are addressed but not fully answered; 6. Information is presented but could have been more clearly and/or logically presented; 7. A coherent position is presented but has some weaknesses; 8. Paragraphs are generally organized and add to the development of ideas; 9. Detail is good but could be improved in specific places. 10. Questions are not fully answered; 11. The overall presentation and/or logic needs improvement; 12. An overall cohesive position is not presented; 13. Paragraph structure and overall organization hinder effectiveness; 14. Ideas are asserted rather than developed. ANALYSIS [TEN (10)POINTS] B 1. The arguments and counterarguments are well developed; 2. The applicable rule is presented; 3. The facts relevant to the rule are stated; 4. There is an explanation of how the rule applies to the facts; 5. The conclusion summarizes the arguments and counterarguments; 6. The conclusion is clearly stated and explains the legal and factual basis for the conclusion. 7. The arguments and counter arguments are presented but could be developed; 8. The applicable rules are referenced but not presented; 9. Relevant facts could be developed; 10. The application of the facts to the rule needs to be developed; 11. There is a conclusion on the rule and facts but it needs to be explained. 12. Arguments and/or counterarguments are not presented; 13. The applicable rule is not stated or referenced; 14. The relevant facts are not provided; 15. There is a conclusion but no basis for the conclusion is provided. WRITING [FIVE (5) POINTS] C 1. There are clear paragraphs and sentences; 2. There are few, if any grammar and spelling errors. 3. There are some paragraph and/or sentence structure problems; 4. There are 1-2 consistent grammar and/or spelling errors. 5. Errors in grammar, usage, spelling and punctuation are noticeable, but do not seriously impede the message. 6. The paper would benefit from editing. 7. There is no structure to paragraphs; 8. There are many sentence structure problems; 9. There are many grammar and/or spelling errors; 10. The grammar and sentence structure errors are distracting in conveying the message.
I want it to be done in IRAC way that is why I added the second doc.
Running head: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (CASE STUDY) 0 Employment discrimination (Case Study) Name: samsondeen olayiwola Issue The concern, in Ms. Nevins case, is whether the action of the Promotion Committee to deny Ms. Nevins a promotion to Chief Accounts Executive surmounts to an Ac t of Employment Discrimination. Rule The issues of discrimination are handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The person that believes that they have experienced an incident of discrimination should file a discrimination charge with the EEOC before filing a workplace discrimination lawsuit against the employer. An alternative involves filing a complaint with the local anti-discrimination agencies commonly known as the Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPA). Filing with FEPA leads to an automatic dual filing with EEOC. Those that seek to file a formal complaint have 15 calendar days after the receipt of “Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint” from the EEOC (Connolly Jr, Connolly, & Feinstein, 2018). The Federal and State Laws Protect against Discrimination . The employer is restricted from making discriminatory business decisions which include workplace promotion decisions. The Disabilities Act prevent denying promotion based on one’s disability. Age Discrimination Act protects against denying people promotions based on their age . Also, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects discriminatory promotion decisions based on religion, race, nationality or gender (Hersch, & Shinall, 2015). The glass ceiling discrimination case requires the complainant to show that they belong to a protected class, the person proves that they qualified for the promotion and it was given to a person with similar qualifications. Denial of promotion is not discrimination if the complainant cannot prove the discrimination glass ceiling threshold (Powell, & Butterfield, 2015). The employee complaining is not a member of a protected class, the employee was not qualified for the position, or it was given to a person with better qualifications . The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff that the discrimination occurred when the employer made the promotion decisions. Application The employment decision at Ms. Nevins’s workplace was adverse . According to her supervisor, Ms. Nevins was the most qualified candidate for the job position. Ms. Nevins is said to be the driving force on the success of her departmen t. A selection another candidate aside from MS. Nevins is not ideal for the company. The decision to deny Ms. Nevins the promotion was based on gender . The recommendations from the Promotions Committee and the Supervisor cl early show the gender element in the promotion decisions . In summary , the Promotion Committee showed that Ms. Nevins espoused more masculine characteristics than they could accept. The Supervisor also advised Ms. Nevins to wear make-up and present herself in a manner they thought befitted a woma n. The employer provided a non-discriminatory reason that Ms. Nevins was too harsh and used profane language on her colleagues. The employer further claimed that Ms. Nevins did not get along with the other employees. The employer tried to sugarcoat the situation by giving one of the five promotion positions to a woman. The employer used the character concerns for Ms. Nevins as a pretext for employment discrimination. Some members of the team accept that other male employees showed similar characters as Ms. Nevins. Male workers were allowed to use profane languages but not Ms. Nevins since she was a woman. The Promotion of single woman in five promotion position is also not sufficient to alleviate the gender discrimination concerns in the company. Conclusion The case shows that Ms. Nevins was denied promotion based on gender. She can successfully file a discrimination case against the company since she has adequate legal grounds. Ms. Nevins is part of a protected group by being a woman. Ms. Nevins qualified for the position. Furthermore, Ms. Nevins was the best-qualified candidate in the company and any person given the position was less qualified. References Connolly Jr, W. B., Connolly, M. J., & Feinstein, J. (2018). A practical guide to equal employment opportunity. Law Journal Press. Hersch, J., & Shinall, J. B. (2015). Fifty years later: The legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 424-456. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2015). The glass ceiling: what have we learned 20 years on?. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(4), 306-326.