In this assignment, you evaluate and assess workplace protection legislation, identify the law pursuant to the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine and legal exceptions, apply this understanding to a business scenario

Overview

In this assignment, you evaluate and assess workplace protection legislation, identify the law pursuant to the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine and legal exceptions, apply this understanding to a business scenario, and explain legal requirements for hiring new employees and your own home state laws as to workers’ compensation and immigration.

Instructions

Respond to the following in 4–6 pages:

1. Cite two federal laws that you believe are the most important for protecting employees from workplace discrimination. Provide a compelling argument for the effectiveness of the legislation in protecting employees and two case law examples to support your assessment.
2. Explain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States.
3. Some states do not allow undocumented workers, or those not legally allowed to work in the United States, to receive workers’ compensation benefits. Provide the law in your home state and a compelling and supported (with research) argument advocating for or against your state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers.
4. Provide a comprehensive summary of the employment-at-will (EAW) doctrine that includes all possible legal exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination.
5. Cite and support (with research) an appropriate EAW exception that the employee in each of the following scenarios could reasonably argue to save their job.

Scenario 1: JoAnn, a manager, started a blog on the company website for employee grievances and problems. She noticed that a worker was protesting that allegedly no Asian American employees had gotten a raise in two years at the company. Christine, the employee, also criticized how much CEO Elon had made last year and how he was “out of touch” with the realities of his employees. JoAnn reminded Christine that she was an employee-at-will. The next day, Christine talked to her fellow co-workers about forming a union. JoAnn fired Christine, and Christine is suing for wrongful termination.

Scenario 2: Steven, a department supervisor, fired his secretary, Ann. Ann, a devout Christian, had been putting Right-to-Life flyers in the employee breakroom. Steven talked to Ann twice and reiterated her actions were not appropriate. Ann continued to leave the pamphlets and was also taking time away from work to pray at her desk during the busiest times of the morning. Ann is suing for wrongful termination.

Requirements

• 4–6 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), with 1-inch margins on all sides.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the Sources list are not included in the required assignment page length.

Resources

• Use the Strayer Library to conduct your research.
• Include at least three quality references.
• The textbook for this class is a required source for this assignment.

This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the Library site for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is as follows:

• Evaluate federal law relative to workplace discrimination, employment-at-will, or worker’s compensation eligibility.

Week 10 Assignment The Value of Fair Treatment in the WorkplaceWeek 10 Assignment The Value of Fair Treatment in the WorkplaceCriteriaRatingsPtsProvide a compelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees. Cite case law to support the assessment.30 to >27 ptsExemplaryProvided a compelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees. Cited case law to support the assessment.27 to >24 ptsCompetentProvided a compelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees but failed to sufficiently cite case law to support the assessment.24 to >21 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided an uncompelling argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees or cited case law that is not applicable.21 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not submit or did not provide an argument for the effectiveness of two chosen pieces of legislation for protecting employees./ 30 ptsExplain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States.20 to >18 ptsExemplaryExplained the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States.18 to >16 ptsCompetentExplained the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States with 1–2 significant errors or omissions.16 to >14 ptsNeeds ImprovementExplained the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment in the United States with 3–4 significant errors or omissions.14 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not submit or did not explain the actions that employers must take to verify legal employment or does so with more than 4 significant errors or omissions./ 20 ptsProvided a compelling argument advocating for or against a state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. Argument is supported with research.30 to >27 ptsExemplaryProvided a compelling argument advocating for or against a state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers. Argument is supported with research.27 to >24 ptsCompetentProvided a compelling argument advocating for or against a state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers but provided no supporting research.24 to >21 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided an uncompelling and unsupported argument advocating for or against a state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers.21 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not submit or did not provide an argument advocating for or against a state’s practice of allowing or denying workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented or illegal workers./ 30 ptsProvide a comprehensive summary of employment-at-will doctrine that includes all possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination.20 to >18 ptsExemplaryProvided a comprehensive summary of employment-at-will doctrine that includes all possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination.18 to >16 ptsCompetentProvided a comprehensive summary of employment-at-will doctrine but omitted all possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination.16 to >14 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided a an incomplete summary of employment-at-will doctrine and possible exceptions designed to fight wrongful termination.14 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not submit or did not provide a summary of employment-at-will doctrine./ 20 ptsCite an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1. Support the response.30 to >27 ptsExemplaryCited an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1. Supported the response with evidence.27 to >24 ptsCompetentCited an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1. Support lacked detail.24 to >21 ptsNeeds ImprovementCited an inappropriate EAW exception that an employee could not reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 1.21 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not submit or did not cite an EAW exception that an employee could argue to save their job in Scenario 1./ 30 ptsCite an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2. Support the response.30 to >27 ptsExemplaryCited an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2. Supported the response with evidence.27 to >24 ptsCompetentCited an appropriate EAW exception that an employee could reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2. Support lacked detail.24 to >21 ptsNeeds ImprovementCited an inappropriate EAW exception that an employee could not reasonably argue to save their job in Scenario 2.21 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not submit or did not cite an EAW exception that an employee could argue to save their job in Scenario 2./ 30 ptsInclude at least high quality three references, including the required textbook, as sources for the paper.20 to >18 ptsExemplaryIncluded the required number of references; all references are high quality choices.18 to >16 ptsCompetentIncluded the required number of required references; some references are high quality choices.16 to >14 ptsNeeds ImprovementDid not meet the required number of references; some or all references are poor quality choices.14 to >0 ptsUnacceptableNo references provided./ 20 ptsClarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements.20 to >18 ptsExemplary0–2 errors present.18 to >16 ptsCompetent3–4 errors present.16 to >14 ptsNeeds Improvement5–6 errors present.14 to >0 ptsU