Please do a critique of the attached case grading rubric is attached I will Tip well if I get an A+ :-)

7.3 Bud Carriker, Audit Senior Zakiyah Calvin-Sabree Liberty University Summary Louis Armstrong Carriker(named after famous blues musician), also known as Bud Carriker was born to a military African-American man, Elliot Carriker and his MexicanAmerican wife whose name was not given. Bud's mother died during childbirth, causing him to be raised by his grandmother in New Orleans, LA during majority of his childhood. As a teenager, Bud was reunited with his father along with his father's new wife and two twin girls. During high school, Bud was a model student both athletically and academically, causing him to receive a scholarship to a Division 1 school where he would pursue a degree in Accounting. Bud decided to pursue a degree in Accounting, after speaking with his dad whom after the military pursues a career in finance as a loan officer as well as his high school counselor who ensured him that the Accounting field could yield a long lucrative career. During his senior year of college, Bud began to seek his post-college employment by interviewing with several promising companies. Bud decided to take an offer with a public accounting firm, giving him the opportunity to gain a few years of audit experience and a strong background in financial accounting. Bud hoped that this experience would equip him with the skills necessary to become either a corporate controller of a Chief Financial Officer(CFO) in the financial services industry. Bud became very successful in the public accounting industry, receiving a promotion to audit senior in just two short years in 1977. In mid-November 1979, Alex Saunders, the managing partner at Bud's office informed Bud that the firm had acquired a new client that was a privately owned bank, owned by Jim Charles. Jim Charles was a "self-made" millionaire who got lucky and came into a few oil wells in the Permian Basin. Jim used that money to buy a small bank in west Texas that has done extremely well over time by funding commercial real-estate and high risk oil and gas ventures. Bud made it know that he wanted to work with the banking industry, and Alex Saunders knew when acquiring the new client that Bud would jump at the opportunity to be assigned to this audit engagement. Saunders informed Bud that he would be working with Eric Jones as a partner on this engagement and that since both were fairly new to the banking industry that Saunders would be shadowing the two, and providing support where needed. He would also be assigning K.T. Wilson as audit manager on the team. Bud and Eric immediately started working on the audit engagement reviewing prior year work papers obtained from previous auditors, and meeting with client personnel to do some preliminary internal control work. Everything was running smoothly until it was time to meet with owner and Chief Executive Officer(CEO), Jim Charles. While meeting with Charles, Bud realized that Charles seemed annoyed and was very short with them and rushing them out of his office stating that he needed to make some important phone calls. Bud dismissed the behavior and continued working on the engagement under the understanding that he would not have to interact often with Jim Charles. Shortly after the meeting, Bud was called into the office by Alex Saunders. Saunders explained to Bud that he would be taking him off the audit engagement and switching him with Zach Payne who had actually replaced Bud on his previous audit engagement. Bud was confused, and realized Saunders was uncomfortable and had not planned on providing an explanation on the course of action. Bud professionally explained that he had been a hardworking, loyal employee to this company who was more than qualified to perform the bank audit efficiently and wanted an explanation as to why the sudden change. To which, Alex Saunders replied that Jim Charles called him and requested a different audit senior be assigned because he was not comfortable working with Corriker and that he wanted "another type of person" assigned to the audit. Bud respectfully, removed himself from Saunders office. After Bud completed busy season supervising the fieldwork for his previous audit engagement on Garrett Manufacturing, he received a brief letter from Saunders congratulating him on his promotion to audit manager. Bud did not take the position and resigned from the firm and took a new position as assistant controller with a large healthcare firm in Dallas. Charles received his karmic justice in the 1980's when his empire folded and his loan portfolio was wiped out by huge losses. This was caused by regulatory authorities closing down the bank for operating in an "unsafe and unsound" manner. 1. How do you believe Alex Saunders should have reacted when Jim Charles insisted that Bud be removed from the bank's audit engagement team? What would you have done under similar circumstances if you had been Saunders? I do not agree with the way Alex Saunders handled the situation. Discrimination is not to be tolerated at all, let alone in the work place. When Jim Charles initially contacted Saunders, I believe Saunders should have professionally explained to him that the best team had been put in place to serve his company and that our firm does not discriminate and will not discriminate for the comfort of the client. I would have explained to Jim Charles that if he had a personal problem with one of the members on my audit team and could not absolutely remain professional under these circumstances, that he and I could severe ties and he could take his business elsewhere. 2. In your opinion, did Saunders decision to comply with Charles request violate any professional or ethical standards? Defend your answer. I believe that Saunders compliance violated both professional and ethical standards. Galatians 3:18 (KJV) states "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Every man is to be treated equal, society has created determining factors classifying humans into certain races, genders, and classes. This is not of God and from an ethical stand-point, violates what Christianity stands for. Professionally, it is against the law to treat any employee to a greater or lesser standard based on prejudice. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law put in place to prevent situations like this from happening. This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). 3. How do you believe that Bud should have reacted when Saunders told him why he had been removed from the audit engagement team? I believe Bud acted appropriately during the situation, he kept his cool and remained professional when interacting with Saunders. Due to unfair treatment, many minority employees must continue to strategically negotiate their positions within organizations as they attempt to stabilize themselves in a hierarchy that at times distributes power to them unequally based on their race (Rodriguez, 2012). Bud did the right thing by not tarnishing his reputation and quietly deciding to pursue other employment opportunities outside of the accounting firm. I do however believe that after his meeting with Saunders, Bud should have pursued taking legal action against the firm. AICPA Code of Conduct Section 501-2- Discrimination and harassment in employment practices states that the series of events in this situation would be considered an act discreditable. 4. The key events in this case transpired during the late 1970's. Do you believe that such a series of events could occur now? Explain. I do believe such a series of events could happen now. Unfortunately, in today's society we are still battling with racial profiling and discrimination and recently due to a lot of unfortunate police brutality these issues are once again making there was to the forefront. Over a year ago there was an instance of racial discrimination at McDonalds, the world's largest burgerchain. Nine African-American workers and one Hispanic worker filed the lawsuit against McDonald's at the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia stating that the company simultaneously fire more a dozen black workers "who didn't fit the profile" desired at its restaurants(Valuewalk, 2015). This is only one example to show that we are still dealing with discrimination today. Unfortunately, the detrimental effects of discrimination in the workplace are noticeable everywhere, despite the intense debate related to the need for suppressing it by implementing management diversity (Vasconcelos, 2015). References Rodriguez, L. Y. (2012). Employee racial discrimination complaints: Exploring power through co-cultural theory (Order No. 3534828). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1277169613). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1277169613? accountid=12085 ValueWalk: McDonald's sued by ex-employees for racial discrimination (2015). Chatham: Newstex. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login? url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/164747833 8?accountid=12085 Vasconcelos, A.F. (2015) Portraying some determinants of discrimination in the workplace. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, Vol. 13 Iss: 2, pp.211 - 232 doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/10.1108/MRJIAM02-2015-0574 American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2013). Code of Professional Conduct and Bylaws. New York, NY: AICPA. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Retrieved from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm ACCT 622 DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM REPLY/CRITIQUE GRADING RUBRIC Criteria Points Possible The critique is organized question-by-question. 0 to 10 The critique clearly states agreement or disagreement with the original Case Study. 0 to 30 The critique includes 5 or more appropriate references with references that the original Case Study did not. 0 to 30 Spelling & grammarno more than 2 errors. 0 to 20 Critique comments are written in an exceptional or eloquent manner. 0 to 10 Total