Question

You are the HR director at Springtime Manufacturing, which employs 75 people. The VP of Human Resources has asked that you evaluate the following situations. Please provide in the format of a memorandum to the VP with captions labeling each issue and addressing the questions posed. (See template at end)

1. Springtime operates a distribution center in an old building with 3 floors. While the first two floors can be accessed with an elevator that holds up to 500 lbs, the third floor elevator has a maximum weight capacity of 250 lbs. Thus, with an average weight of 100 lbs per freight load, this elevator can only support a person weighing a maximum of 150 lbs. Springtime has a sign that specifically forbids any employee weighing more than 150 lbs from using the elevator to the third floor, which is used to house inventory. Please evaluate whether this policy violates Title VII.

Assessment Rubric for Assignment 4-     20 points total

Identification of Legal Issues (Clarity) 5 points Is the legal issue correctly identified for each situation presented?

Analysis Explanation (Content) 5 points Does the memorandum use the correct analysis for each identified issue and thoroughly explain the analysis?

Application of Analysis to Facts (Evidence Evaluation) 5 points Does each analysis include all applicable facts?

Conclusion (Are conclusions appropriate based on evaluation and appropriate use of terminology) 5 points

Answer 1

To: Mr. XYZ, Vice President, Human Resources, Springtime Manufacturing

From: Mr. ABC, Human Resource Director, Springtime Manufacturing

Date: 08.04.2020

Subject: Analysis of the instance of Mr. Robin's Worker's Compensation Fund

Coming up next is the examination for the instance of Mr. Robin and the specialist's pay guarantee he had requested.

Lawful Issue: Mr. Robin has petitioned for a laborer's pay in the wake of breaking his leg playing golf, the participation of which is given by the association.

Along these lines, is this occurrence is an individual issue or a mishap grinding away and consequently Mr. Robin is subject for specialist's pay?

Clarification: Mr. Robin accepts he is subject for laborer's pay since he had taken a customer for the club and was between a gathering, when he got harmed. He accepts he was working when he had been harmed and henceforth Springtime Manufacturing is at risk for it.

Examination: The participation charge is being paid by the association, and Mr. Robin had taken his companions alongside him that day. Despite the fact that he was meeting a customer for work the whole gathering was a casual undertaking, and he undeniably hurt while playing for his advantages and not for the association.

Realities: 1. Mr. Robin met a customer at the club. 2. He had additionally brought his companions and thus it was not totally a conventional gathering. 3. The whole day was spent casually by eating, playing, and drinking.

As I would like to think, Mr. Robin isn't subject for laborer's pay since he has not been harmed in the premises of the association. Despite the fact that the charges were paid for the club by the association, they aren't at risk to pay remuneration to Mr. Robin.

Sympathetically let me know whether something different is required from my end.

Warm Regards.

On the off chance that this helped you please give a bangs up!!!!!