OHRC: DISMISSAL (3 pages)
Instructions
- Read the following scenario in the context of the Wilson Bros. case study you read in Module 1.
- Answer all five questions below. If you have any questions about the assignment (e.g., what to do), post them to the Discussion Board.
THE KAREN LYON CASE SCENARIO
Karen Lyon, a 30-year-old machine operator in one of the Wilson Bros. Ontario-based food processing plants. She has been with the Company for six years.
She sent a letter to you, the newly appointed Director of Human Resources of Wilson Bros., accusing her supervisor, Joe Bloom, of sexually harassing her while she was at work. The letter was hand-written and provided dates, times, and detailed descriptions of various unwanted advances by Joe toward Karen, including touching, molesting, and physical exposure. The incidents described in the letter go back at least two years from the date the letter was sent to you and continue to the present.
Joe Bloom is a long-term manager with the Company. In fact, he has been employed 40 years; and while he does not have a personal ownership stake at the firm, he is viewed by most employees in the Company as one of the original founders and builders of the business. Joe has a long-standing personal relationship and friendship with the owners, Bob and John Wilson.
You are aware of Joe’s background and connections, just as you are aware that the Company has not published any guidelines or policies for managers or employees to follow in harassment cases, nor are there official rules of conduct on the subject. You are also concerned that if confronted, Joe would simply deny the allegations.
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER:
1. Did Karen do the right thing? What else might she have done? (Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
2. What should you do upon receipt of the letter? (Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
3. What should your longer-term strategy be? (Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
4. What are the arguments for and against dismissing Joe Bloom for cause? (Approx. 200 words – 10 marks)
5. What would a judge award in a wrongful dismissal case? Why? (Approx. 100 words – 5 marks)
Format
- Create one document, and include all four answers. No title page necessary.
- Use headings to separate one question from the next.
- Write the title of the assignment and your name at the top of the document.
- Refer to laws, statutes, cases, module notes, and/or textbook examples to support your answers.
Late Submissions: Late submissions will lose 10% per day. If you require an extension for medical or other substantial reasons, you must contact the instructor in advance to make arrangements.
Grading Rubric
| Superior 5 points | Good 3 points | Weak 1 point | Fail 0 points | |
| 1 | Correctly and solidly explains the legality of Karen’s actions and her other options, with solid and convincing support from the textbook or module notes. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Has the basic idea of the legality of Karen’s actions and other options, but leaves out some key points. May fail to support it convincingly with material from the textbook or module notes. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| 2 | Correctly identifies the critical actions a HR manager must take in this type of situation, explaining why, with solid and convincing support from the textbook or module notes. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Partially identifies the critical actions a HR manager must take in this type of situation. May omit to explain why. May fail to convincingly support the answer with material from the textbook or module notes. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| 3 | Correctly outlines a legally sound long-term strategy, explaining your reasoning, with solid and convincing support from the textbook or module notes. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Partially outlines a long-term strategy. The long-term strategy may fail to take into consideration all relevant laws/statutes. Reasons may be missing. May fail to convincingly support the answer with material from the textbook or module notes. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| 5 | Correctly describes how a judge would likely rule in this case, providing a basis in cases, examples, and laws/statues. Answer communicates clearly in a professional style. Answer is separated from the other answers with a heading. | Partially describes how a judge would likely rule in this case, missing some key points. Basis in cases, examples, and laws/statutes may be missing or weak. Weak communication and style. | Answer is too brief to provide enough content to answer the question. Answer is framed as an opinion. Answer may be unclear due to vague writing and weak grammar/ spelling. Little or no support provided for the answer. | Did not do. |
| Superior 10 points | Good 6 points | Weak 2 points | Fail 0 points | |
| 4 | Provides a solid and thorough discussion of arguments for and against dismissing Joe. Provides balanced discussion of both pros and cons. Laws/statutes and cases are cited as support for both sides. Answer is an appropriate length. Well organized, clearly written, and has the style and professionalism of an executive summary of a report to management. | Provides a partial discussion of arguments for and against dismissing Joe. May have omitted material or provided only one side of the argument. Includes some laws/statutes and cases as support, but some important ones are missing. Answer is at or near an appropriate length. May have some weaknesses in organization, clarity, spelling and grammar, and/or professionalism. | Very incompletely answers the question, omitting or simply touching on arguments for and/or against dismissing Joe. Few or no laws/statutes and cases are cited as support. Answer is too brief. May have weaknesses in organization, clarity, spelling and grammar, and/or professionalism. | Did not do. |
