IRAC Age Discrimination. Court Case on Employee Discrimination Based on Age: Russ B v Melvin Watt
Reference court case to use: https://www(dot)eeoc(dot)gov/decisions/0120151593.pdf
ISSUE
State the legal issue of the case.
RULE
State the rule that the court applies to the legal issue.
ANALYSIS
Discuss in detail how the court approached the case and how it came to its ruling. This should include a summary of the facts of the underlying dispute, an explanation of how case came to the court or regulatory agency, and a summary of any case law that the court included in the opinion.
CONCLUSION/APPLICATION
State a brief conclusion of the case. Discuss your opinion on whether the court came to the correct conclusion. Discuss how this case should be utilized in employment planning and policies to minimize employer liability.
Rubric
IRAC Analysis Rubric
IRAC Analysis Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Issue
Correctly state the legal issue of the case.
4.0 pts
Correctly identified Issue.
0.0 pts
No issue stated.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Rule
Correctly state the rule that the court applies to the legal issue.
4.0 pts
Correctly identified Rule.
0.0 pts
No rule identified.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis
The response discusses, in detail, how the court approached the case and how it came to its ruling. A summary of the facts of the underlying dispute, an explanation of how case came to the court or regulatory agency, and a summary of any case law that the court included in the opinion in included.
12.0 pts
Correctly Identifies Facts, Well-Reasoned, Discussion Relating Facts to Rule.
8.0 pts
Correctly Identifies Facts, Not Well Reasoned.
4.0 pts
Facts Not Correctly Identified, Analysis Incoherent.
0.0 pts
No analysis.
12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Conclusion
Includes a brief statement regarding the conclusion of the case.
4.0 pts
Complete Summation, Restates Issue and Rule.
3.0 pts
Mostly Complete and Correct, Does NOT restate Issue and Rule.
2.0 pts
Incomplete and Incorrect Summation.
0.0 pts
No conclusion.
4.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reaction
A discussion of the student's opinion on the outcome of the case and how this case may be utilized in employment planning and policies to minimize employer liability is provided.
12.0 pts
Discuss whether you think the court came to the right conclusion, included any facts you would think relevant.
8.0 pts
4.0 pts
0.0 pts
12.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Writing
The analysis is well-written, carefully edited, and formatted for a professional audience.
4.0 pts
Professional Language, No grammatical, Punctuation or Spelling Errors, Length Requirement Met, Titled IRAC sections.
3.0 pts
Some mistakes, Does not detract from Understanding, Did not title IRAC sections.
2.0 pts
Many Mistakes, Detracts From Understanding.
0.0 pts
Lack of writing requirement met.
4.0 pts
Total Points: 40.0
Reference court case to use: https://www(dot)eeoc(dot)gov/decisions/0120151593.pdf
Court Case on Employee Discrimination Based on Age: Russ B v Melvin Watt
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Issue
The legal issue in question in the case of Russ B v Melvin Watt is the alleged discrimination of the complainant by age. Mr. Russ sued his federal employer (Federal Housing Finance Agency) in court because he felt discriminated against in the workplace. He argues that his younger colleagues received Performance-Based Benefits for the financial years 2012 and 2013 while he was left out despite him making equal contributions to the Agency. In making its ruling, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found out that the defendant did not exhibit any intentions or actions of discrimination against the complainant.
Rule
The Commission weighed the evidence against the provisions of The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (29 USC §6101) in making its decision. This rule – the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 – was drawn to protect workers aged 40 years and above from discrimination in the workplace. The rule is categorical on the cases that amount to discrimination by age in matters of hiring, composition, dismissal, or promotion (Department of Labor, n.d). Thus, none of the items under this rule were violated by the Agency.
Analysis
The Commission first sought to identify if indeed the complainant’s denial of Performance-Based Benefits was pre-textual. Therefore, it principally based its judgment on the report by the Agency that was served to the complainant in due time before the hearing. In the Agency’s report, the complainant did not establish a prima facie case to prove that there was discrimination in the workplace. Fur...