question 1

A nurse's aide alleged that on August 22, 2012, she was attacked while cleaning a resident's room by a male coworker who attempted to rape her. She was able to escape and reported the attack to the nursing home's managers, However, following this incident, managers started saying that she had fabricated the whole thing and her work hours were changed without notice. Coworkers also started to exhibit hostility toward her, saying that she was a \"liar,\" refusing to work with her, and in one instance, spilling hot coee on her. After her reauestfor transfer to another unit was denied, the woman resigned on September 11, 2012. Shej'iled a discrimination charge with the EEOC on July 3, 2013. When she later filed suit in federal court, the nursing home moved to have the case dismissed because her EEOC charge had not been timely. What should the court decide? Why? A manager at an airport rental car station e-mailed a regional manager with allegations of sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor. Although bypassing the immediate supervisor was permitted under the company's harassment policy, the regional manager testified that he was not happy that she had not dealt directly with her immediate supervisor. The regional manager also said that he liked employees to joke around and that the complaint would "put a muzzle on interaction" between employees. Twenty-eight days after the e-mail was sent, the regional manager and supervisor met with the employee and terminated her. The regional manager testified that he had actually made the termination decision sooner, some 15 days after the e-mail. The employee was told that her termination was due to a downturn in business following 9/11 and her status as the least senior manager at the location. The employee's requests for a lateral transfer to one of several open positions in other cities was rejected on the grounds that, under company policy, employees with disciplinary warnings in their files were not eligible for transfer. However, although this policy existed, it was regarded as discretionary and not consistently followed. Although it was undisputed that 9/11 had greatly reduced business, this employee was the only manager in the Midwest Region who was laid off. When her former position became open a year later, the woman applied for the position but received no response. She sued. What should the court decide? Why?A 52yearold was regarded as a \"good\" employee during the ten years that she was employed. A new site director, who had previously worked at the samefocility, allegedly commented that she thought the 52yearold had already retired. At an office party, she told the 62-yearold that \"You better slow down because at your age you're going to have a heart attack if you keep this up. J"Another manager allegedly told another employee that \"now that {the |52yearol|::llI is getting older she seems to forget a lot and is always repeating herself.\" A complaint surfaced from an employee who said that someone within the company had improperly disclosed the employee's confidential medical information. An investigation was launched and it was determined from the initial interviews that the 62yearold {an HR technician/assistant) had disclosed the condential information to another HR associate, who in turn shared it with others outside of their department. The HR associate signed a statement implicating the 52year-old as the source of the confidential information, but subsequently supplemented her statement by suggesting that the conden tial information had also been disclosed in a manner independent from the 62-year old's conduct, and still later (after the conclusion of the investigation) disavowed her statements entirely. The 62year-old continued to deny any wrongdoing. However, managers believed that the 62yearold gave inconsistent answers to their questions and had discussed other employees\" condential medical information. in a conference call involving multiple managers, the two managers who had made comments related to the woman's age recommended termination. Termination was authorized by the corporate vice president ofHR. The much younger (23-yearold) HR associate was also terminated. is this age discrimination? Why or why not