Julie Lucas Case Study.

Case Study-Module 1

Question 1: Prepare a written report that presents a convincing disparate treatment claim that Gus had been intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his age.

Background:

Gus was employed by Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC) as a Regional Center Manager. BPIC made the decision to restructure the claims function and eliminated four regional offices that included the regional center manager (RCM) positions.  The restructure replaced these positions with 5 new corporate claims specialist (CCS) positions.  Gus and the other RCM’s, all over the age of 40, were asked to re-apply for the new CCS positions None of them were hired. All the positions were given to other candidates, all under the age of 40.  Gus filed a lawsuit for age discrimination.

Disparate Treatment

The burden of proof in a disparate treatment claim falls on the plaintiff.  To prove the claim, they must prove that:

1. The person is protected under law
2. The person is qualified for the job and that the person applied for the position
3. The person was not hired even though he was fully qualified
4. After not being hired, the company sought and hired candidates with similar qualifications.

Based on the burden of proof, it is determined that a finding of disparate treatment would be a viable basis for the lawsuit as Gus had been intentionally discriminated against based on his age.

BPIC violated the age discrimination act of 1967 and intentionally discriminated against Gus solely based on his age.

Proof

1. BPIC asked Gus to apply for the new CCS position
2. After applying he was rejected even though he was highly qualified for the position, evidenced by the statement from the Vice President (his former boss) that “that there was “no question” but that Gus was qualified in all respects for the CCS job.” (Herbert G. Heneman III, 2019)   
3. No applicant over the age of 40 was hired, all positions went to candidates under the age of 40 and were less or equally qualified.  It should be noted that 2 candidates reported to Gus in his position prior to the restructure
4. BPIC claimed that he was not hired due to lack of technical and communication skills, but a review of his past performance and appraisal record shows this to be not true.

Question 2: Present a convincing rebuttal, from the viewpoint of BPIC, to this disparate treatment claim