Case Study: Zimpfer Vs. Palm Beach County
Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County
Individual Assignment #1
By
Olajide O Ayeni (1183971)
Course: Human Resources Management (MGMT 6374)
Professor:
Nagarajan Ramamoorthy
University of Houston, Victoria
September, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Critical Issues
ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence
ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court Cases
Critical Evaluation of the I/O Psychologist Report
Potential Additional Evidence Needed for Zimpfer
Potential Rebuttal Evidence Needed for the County
Recommendations to the County
Future Preventive Actions Needed
Executive Summary
Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County’s case is about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer, age 52, against Palm Beach County claiming …show more content…
Zimpfer is a member of the protected age group (40 or older); (2) Mr. Zimpfer has the ability to perform satisfactorily at some absolute or relative level; (3) Mr. Zimpfer was not hire; and (4) the position was filled by a younger person. Top of these is the possible failure in establishing a prima facie case due to the ususal subjectivity in comparing individuals.
ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence
ADEA positioned that to establish a prima facie case against employer, in this case, Palm Beach County, Mr. Zimpfer and his lawyer would have to make available evidence that would meet its requirements. The requirements are highlighted as the critical issues above. Mr. Zimpfer is older than 40 and therefore protected under the ADEA. Mr. Zimpfer is able to perform satisfactorily at some relative comparable level with other.
ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court …show more content…
Josephs’ report appear objective and comprehensive enough based on the document available to him but, lack some subjective internal factors or information needed to conclude who the best candidate for the position is. Information about the outcome and performance of each candidate during interview are not available and not included in the report presented. Credence was given to Mr. Zimpfer and others based on the resume submitted that showed their skill sets. Resume only contain written words which the claim may not necessarily put to real hands-on. Zimpfer interview outcome may not have been so convincing despite his good rating on paper evidence. Mr Merriman could have displayed that he is more knowledgeable in related skills that are needed for this position more than Mr.
Individual Assignment #1
By
Olajide O Ayeni (1183971)
Course: Human Resources Management (MGMT 6374)
Professor:
Nagarajan Ramamoorthy
University of Houston, Victoria
September, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Critical Issues
ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence
ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court Cases
Critical Evaluation of the I/O Psychologist Report
Potential Additional Evidence Needed for Zimpfer
Potential Rebuttal Evidence Needed for the County
Recommendations to the County
Future Preventive Actions Needed
Executive Summary
Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County’s case is about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer, age 52, against Palm Beach County claiming …show more content…
Zimpfer is a member of the protected age group (40 or older); (2) Mr. Zimpfer has the ability to perform satisfactorily at some absolute or relative level; (3) Mr. Zimpfer was not hire; and (4) the position was filled by a younger person. Top of these is the possible failure in establishing a prima facie case due to the ususal subjectivity in comparing individuals.
ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence
ADEA positioned that to establish a prima facie case against employer, in this case, Palm Beach County, Mr. Zimpfer and his lawyer would have to make available evidence that would meet its requirements. The requirements are highlighted as the critical issues above. Mr. Zimpfer is older than 40 and therefore protected under the ADEA. Mr. Zimpfer is able to perform satisfactorily at some relative comparable level with other.
ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court …show more content…
Josephs’ report appear objective and comprehensive enough based on the document available to him but, lack some subjective internal factors or information needed to conclude who the best candidate for the position is. Information about the outcome and performance of each candidate during interview are not available and not included in the report presented. Credence was given to Mr. Zimpfer and others based on the resume submitted that showed their skill sets. Resume only contain written words which the claim may not necessarily put to real hands-on. Zimpfer interview outcome may not have been so convincing despite his good rating on paper evidence. Mr Merriman could have displayed that he is more knowledgeable in related skills that are needed for this position more than Mr.