Unformatted text preview:

Lauren KurtzProf. James SpinaBMGT360 – Section 010526 September 2012Zimpfer V. Palm Beach CountyIn the case of Zimpfer V. Palm Beach County, I believe it is justified that he has a case forage discrimination. Through the evidence provided by the professional opinion of Marcy Miller Josephs, PH. D., it is apparent that Bryce Zimpfer is the most qualified candidate for the positionof Employee Relations Manager. When professionally compared to the other applicants, Zimpfer’s qualifications exceed all expectations. These calculations are a clear indication that he is highly trained and capable of performing all tasks required of this position. Not only is he competent, but he is also the ideal candidate.The applicant chosen, Brad Merriman, is an outside resource of lesser professional value. When compared to the other candidates, Merriman does not prove to be the strongest in any analysis. Not only does he lack the core qualifications, but also he is also not as experienced as the other contenders; however, he is one of the youngest applicants. Due to these evaluations, it is evident that Zimpfer is the ideal candidate for this position and that he has a case for age discrimination due to the comparison of age between him and Merriman.Palm Beach County will have a difficult time defending their case against Zimpfer unless he has done something wrong off the record in the work place to deter them. To prevent this situation from happening again, Palm Beach County should be cautious of who is running their interview process. Because they are already going to be forced to deal with this issue in the case of Zimpfer, they should have this problem at the top of their priority list in the near future.If a pattern occurs in their recruitment and hiring process, they will be labeled as adiscriminatory company and will suffer greatly. It is better to be proactive and preventative than to constantly deal with the repercussions.To ensure that they do not face this issue again in the future, they should use some typeof disclaimer that applicants must read and sign. This document can ensure applicants of the fairness of the Palm Beach County interview and selection process. This way, they will prevent candidates from being turned off by their hiring practices. They might also want to hire from within the business more often to prove their devotion to their loyal


View Full Document

UMD BMGT 360 - Zimpfer V. Palm Beach County

Download Zimpfer V. Palm Beach County
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Zimpfer V. Palm Beach County and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Zimpfer V. Palm Beach County 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?