Purpose

You will participate in a small group discussion and discuss the case study material presented in the prior pages of the assignment area of the course. You will only see members assigned to your group. Your instructor can also access this area. 

Initial Post

Step 1: Read the Case Materials

On the prior pages you were given background information and exhibits about the case at hand. Please be sure to read the material carefully before attempting to complete this discussion activity.

Step 2: Read the Appeal

Below is the case appeal. Please read the appeal carefully.

Appeal

An appeal of a decision issued by Commission Against Discrimination (CAD) Administrative Judge (AJ) Henry Remington has been filed by South County Area Medical (SCAM). AJ Remington ordered SCAM to draft an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) that will address statistical shortfalls indicative of discriminatory recruiting and hiring practices within 90 days of his order with a requirement to file quarterly progress reports and to achieve parity in 24 months. The appeal was filed with your group, which functions as the Supreme Court of HRER 501 at Penn State University.

Step 3: Make an Initial Post

The reading for Lesson 3 included reasonable standards for establishing realistic AAPs and proving discrimination based on statistical evidence. SCAM appeals CAD’s decision on both bases. You are to determine whether the arguments advanced by CAD or SCAM should prevail, or a remand based on a compromise, a hybrid of the arguments proffered by the parties, should issue. You should post an observation about the case using the IRAC format. Discuss the following in a post of between 200 and 500 words:

• Which of the outcomes urged by CAD or SCAM (or a hybrid) do you support? Provide an analysis based on the appropriate recruitment areas for both clusters and the areas from which the percentages of qualified applicants for each cluster are present. Your analysis should include why the arguments urged by CAD and SCAM are correct or wrong.
• Based on AJ Remington's order directing that an affirmative action plan be developed, discuss the following:
  • What do you think about AJ Remington's order? Is it warranted? Why or why not?
  • How would approach developing an Affirmative Action Plan for this employer? In what order would you go about creating the plan and what would you reference to be sure the plan mirrored current law? Explain this from a summary versus a detailed view. Otherwise, don’t include the plan in your response.
  • Who would you involve in the development process?
  • Who would you involve in approving and implementing the plan?

Your initial post is due by 12:00pm (noon) EST Saturday. See the calendar for specific due dates.

Response Posts

After your initial post, please respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts (100-150 words). In order to help ensure that everyone’s post gets at least one response, please comment on the person who posts immediately after you, and one other of your choosing. A good peer response should include at least one of the following elements:

• Agreement with the original post, plus an extending comment
• An alternative perspective from the original post, plus some rationale for it
• A respectful challenge that includes at least one point of counterargument

Response posts are due by 12:00 pm EST Monday. See the calendar for specific due dates.