Assignment $06\mathrm{.}1$: Scenario Analysis

Assignment

Task: Submit to complete this assignment

Directions

Analyze the five scenarios listed below using the law you have learned thus far. Each analysis should be no less than $150$ words in length and follow these guidelines:

Double$-$spaced

$12-$point Times font

One inch margins

APA format $($Title page, Citations, Reference page$)$

Correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation

Scenarios

Carol Lorenz was employed by Tyson Foods, Inc. in Cherokee, Iowa, from October $1985$ until December $6,2012,$ when her employment was terminated. She was $62$ years old at the time of her discharge. Tyson acknowledges that Lorenz performed her job duties competently but notes that her record included some behavioral and attendance issues. For instance, in October, $2012,$ Lorenz signed a Management Support Attendance Notification that itemized three alleged instances of tardiness during $2012.$ The document notes that Lorenz was just one attendance notification short of being discharged. On December $5,2012,$ Lorenz was late again, this time by less than two minutes. She contends that she stubbed her toe that morning with enough force to make her believe she may have broken it$.$ She did not call Tyson to report that she would be late. The following day, Lorenz was advised that she was being discharged because she had exceeded the maximum allowed tardiness. Lorenz had worked for Tyson for $27$ years at the time her employment was terminated. Lorenz alleges that the tardiness was a pretext for age discrimination. Does she have a claim under the ADEA? What must she show to determine that her firing was a pretext for age discrimination?

In $2013,$ Metz Culinary Management, Inc. took over the nutrition service at St$.$ Mary$$s Health System. As part of the contractual agreement between St$.$ Mary$$s and Metz, Metz was required to retain all food service staff, including the plaintiff, Dennis Bouyea. Not long after the management transition, Farrow became Bouyea$$s direct supervisor and was alleged to have made age$-$related comments and to have questioned why older individuals remained in entry$-$level positions. Metz denies direct comments but does admit that he mentioned that the salad prep workers topped the pay scale and that Metz could probably replace two salad people with one chef to save money. While Metz originally had some severe financial difficulties, by $2015,$ it met and exceeded budget targets at St$.$ Mary$$s$.$ Bouyea had received stellar evaluations in the past, and in February $2015,$ Farrow gave Bouyea a generally positive review. However, in April $2015,$ Farrow set a $60-$day target for Bouyea to hit budget and a $30-$day target to hit other performance goals. He also began actively recruiting for a replacement for Bouyea, who subsequently was fired in June $2015.$ At the time, Bouyea was $58,$ and his replacement was $51.$ Metz also had terminated another manager who was $35$ but had put that employee on a performance improvement plan, unlike Bouyea, who was terminated without being given a chance to improve. In the year that followed Bouyea$$s termination, six other employees over the age of $40$ either were terminated or resigned. Given the case facts, do you believe that Bouyea has a claim under the ADEA or the Metz has an LNDR$?$

Terri Kallail, a Type I insulin$-$dependent diabetic, worked at an Alliant Energy distribution dispatch center, where she monitored the distribution of electricity, gas, and steam throughout a service area and handled outages and other emergency situations. Coordinators worked in teams of two on nine$-$week schedules that rotate between $8$ and $12-$hour shifts, and between day and night shifts, a requirement included in her job description. In $2004,$ she experienced increased difficulties managing her diabetes while working the rotating shifts and her physician recommended that she work only day shifts. Alliant denied the request, stating that rotating shifts are an essential function of the coordinator position, and offered to permit her to apply for one of three vacant, noncoordinator positions with a straight day shift. Kallail initially considered accepting this offer, but then rejected it after discovering that one position required walking, which she was unable to do$,$ one paid less than her current position, and one would have required her to relocate or to commute a significant distance to work. After taking FMLA leave for surgery in $2005,$ Kallail was given a temporary light duty assignment. When this expired, Kallail$$s doctor again recommended that she be permanently limited to day shifts. Although Alliant offered her a number of other dayshift positions, the jobs offered lower pay or required qualifications for which Kallail was not suited, and she refused them. Instead, she began to receive disability benefits, and subsequently filed a complaint with the EEOC and then a lawsuit. Evaluate Alliant$$s liability under the ADA with regard to three factors: essential functions; reasonab