Directions Read the fact scenario below and address the prompt that follows, based on all of the assigned learning resou

[answerhappygod]

Directions
Read the fact scenario below and address the prompt that
follows, based on all of the assigned
learning resources.
Facts of the Case
Peggy Olson was a long-time employee of Motorcade Insurance
Company, located in the company's flagship office in
Manhattan, NY. She was hired by Motorcade in 2008, and was promoted
in 2012 to the position of “Subrogation Specialist II,” which
involved the pursuit of claims for reimbursement from third parties
(i.e., tortfeasors who caused auto accident-related losses to
Motorcade’s insured’s). In 2019, encouraged by her supervisor, she
applied for a promotion to a management position entitled
“Subrogation Specialist Lead” or “Team Lead.” In this position, the
successful candidate would be responsible for the subrogation
function for the region encompassing Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois,
and Iowa. Because Olson was already performing several of the
responsibilities of the Team Lead position, and based on her
supervisor’s comments, Olson believed she was the frontrunner for
the position. In addition, on her most recent performance
evaluation in 2018, she had received excellent reviews, scoring a
4.40 out of a possible 5.00 points.
There were two finalists for the Team Lead position, Olson, and
another in-house candidate, Don Draper. While Olson had held the
Subrogation Specialist II position for seven years, Draper had only
been promoted to that position about a year earlier. In addition,
Draper had scored lower than Olson, though satisfactorily, on his
most recent performance review, receiving a 4.20 out of a possible
5.00 points.
Three managers formed the promotion committee
who interviewed the two finalists: Betty Francis, who had
previously supervised and worked closely with Olson; Rachel Katz,
the Director of Subrogation; and Joan Holloway, Olson’s immediate
supervisor. Joan Holloway was the ultimate decisionmaker for the
promotion, but she considered input from Francis and Katz in
reaching her decision.
For about two years prior to the promotion decision, Olson had
been taking one course per semester at night at local university.
Also, at the time of the decision, she was the mother of
seven-year-old triplets. Her husband, Mike, left a lucrative
actuary position with another insurance company to stay home with
the kids. On December 1, 2019, two months before the final
decision, Mike made a surprise visit with the triplets to
Olson's office. Olson was actually out of the office at a
mediation to resolve a subrogation lawsuit, Mike met Holloway for
the first time. This is when Holloway first learned that Olson had
three seven-year-old children and that her husband was an actuary
but stayed home with the kids. Holloway sent an email to Olson
stating, “Your husband just stopped by. Wow, I did
not know you had triplets. Bless you! They are so
cute!”
There is no evidence or any assertion that Olson’s work
performance was impacted by any childcare responsibilities she may
have had.
During Olson’s final interview with Francis, her former
supervisor, she was asked how she would respond if an associate did
not complete a project on time. After hearing Olson’s response,
Francis indicated that she thought Olson "might be too
compassionate to be strong." Francis continued, “Peggy, your
approach may be too maternal. But remember, even as a mom, you
can’t just let your kids get away with everything. You’re going
need to ‘man up’ to run this team.”
Draper's interviews with the promotion committee went well.
Based on her own perceptions, and those of Francis and Katz,
Holloway gave Draper's interview an overall higher score than
Olson’s by three points on a 50-point scale. On February 1, 2020,
Holloway offered the promotion to Draper over Olson. When Holloway
informed Olson that she didn’t get the promotion, Holloway
explained:
Don had a higher interview score. Also, you are going to
school, you have the triplets. You just have a lot on your plate
right now. If any of us on the interview panel were in your
position, we would feel overwhelmed. Plus, I'm sure your husband
wants to get back to work. After all, your family would make more
money on an actuary's salary. And as you know, it's usually pretty
hard to find replacements for this position. Don is single and
doesn't have the same types of distractions that you
do. We just don't want to risk having to go through the time,
costs of replacement, and other disruptions in the workplace in the
event your husband goes back to work and you decide to be in charge
of childcare. I know that this isn't what you were hoping for, but
please remember that we love you--it's just a business
decision.
Olson was frustrated by Holloway's decision and thought it
seemed like some sort of sex discrimination. So, on February 15,
she approached Katz and told her, "I think that Joan's decision to
promote Don instead of me was discriminatory. I think
should talk to HR about this." Katz responded, "That's silly,
Peggy. We love you. Don't make a mountain of a molehill. Obviously,
you are a strong and determined woman. I am, too, so I get it. But,
you really don't want this job, anyway. I think what you really
want is something that is more flexible...y'know...for your
family." Still upset, Olson went to HR after the
discussion and reported that he was being discriminated
against.
After the report to HR, Olson didn't hear much, and she
continued to work like she normally did. Around February 20,
Olson's caseload started increasing heavily, and by the end of the
month, she was having a hard time keeping up. On March
5, Holloway conducted a performance review, giving her a 3.00
of a possible 5.00 points. The feedback on the review was sparse,
stating only that "Peggy's performance needs improvement. She
hasn't been a team player lately and has failed to keep up with her
caseload." Her workload continued to increase and her request to
Holloway for some administrative support was denied. On March 15,
Olson received an email from Katz, stating: "Hi Peggy. I hope
you're doing great! As you know, you've been having trouble
managing your workload, so your performance is suffering. But, we
have an opportunity in our cute little Ossining branch."
Peggy replied, "You can't be serious. Ossining is an hour
north of here. And that's just an agency office. We only keep two
people in that office, and they're just agents who sell auto
insurance policies. I've never written policies before." Katz
responded, "Well, this is what we think is in everyone's best
interests. You're expected to report to
the Ossining office on March 30. You can take the
next two weeks off to get ready."
Olson believes that Motorcade discriminated against her and
committed retaliation.
Prompt
Discuss whether Motorcade violated Title VII through (I)
discriminatory conduct and (II) retaliation. For Part
I, you must base your discussion of the rule (and thus,
your subsequent analysis) on the assigned article by the Cross Law
Firm, Disparate Treatment: Who has the burden of
proof? For Part II, you must base your
discussion of the rule (and thus, your subsequent analysis) on the
assigned article by LIsa Guerin, Retaliation in the
Workplace: How to Prove it. When preparing your response
to the problem, be sure to consider the following grading
standards below for what is considered "A" work:
1. Conclusion: Begins
response with a concise, clear, and reasonable assertion
that directly addresses and incorporates the issue that
the problem presents. (Usually, one sentence should
suffice.)
2. Rule (Rule of Law): Explains the
rule(s) of law applicable to the issue(s) arising from the
facts. Teaches the reader the legal rules that are required to
address the problem. In other words, the response explains the
relevant law (legal rule) and breaks it down into the proper
elements and/or factors as necessary. When appropriate and in the
proper context, highly distinctive responses may include references
to cases and/or statutes that may have been examined in the
assigned study materials.
3. Analysis: Applies the rule to
the facts: Articulates the supporting reasoning for
the conclusion by applying/linking the rule (and each element
and/or factor in the rule) to the relevant facts. Highly
distinctive responses may further support reasoning through
comparisons to analogous issues in cases (precedent) that may have
been examined in the assigned study materials.
4. Formatting and Language: Follows a
format and organizational structure that breaks the response into
three distinct sections: (1) Conclusion, (2) Rule, and (3)
Analysis. Writing is clear, concise, and free of errors. Uses
professionally acceptable and coherent grammar and
paragraph/sentence structure. Uses relevant and proper legal
terminology drawn from the assigned study materials.