Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County Case
Individual Assignment #1: “Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County”.
By
MGMT 6374 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
November 2, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1 Critical Issues 1 ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court Cases Critical Evaluation of the I/O Psychologist Report 2 Potential Additional Evidence Needed for Zimpfer 3 Potential Rebuttal Evidence Needed for the County 3 Conclusions 4 Recommendations to the County Future Preventive Actions Needed
Introduction The “Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County” case is about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer against Palm Beach County alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Mr. Zimpher, age 52, has worked for the county’s employee relations area and this employment had lasted for 16 years. There was a vacancy which was advertised by the county for the position of employee relations manager, a position which Mr. Zimpfer decided to apply for. After considering all the applications, the county chose a candidate, Mr. Brad Merriman, age 33, to fill this position. Mr. Zimpfer then decided to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOOC) and hired an attorney, Ms. Lynn Szymoniak to pursue his case. Armed with a favorable report from an I/O psychologist, Dr. Marcy Josephs, Ms. Szymoniak is now attempting to reach a settlement with Palm Beach County’s legal representatives. Critical Issues ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence In order to establish a prima facie case against Palm Beach County, Mr. Zimpfer and his attorney would have to provide evidence that would meet certain requirements. The requirements are: 1) proving that Mr. Zimpfer is older than 39 and therefore protected under the ADEA; 2) Mr. Zimpfer is able to perform satisfactorily at some absolute or relative
By
MGMT 6374 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
November 2, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1 Critical Issues 1 ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence ADEA Requirements for Conclusive Evidence and Relevant Court Cases Critical Evaluation of the I/O Psychologist Report 2 Potential Additional Evidence Needed for Zimpfer 3 Potential Rebuttal Evidence Needed for the County 3 Conclusions 4 Recommendations to the County Future Preventive Actions Needed
Introduction The “Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County” case is about a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer against Palm Beach County alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Mr. Zimpher, age 52, has worked for the county’s employee relations area and this employment had lasted for 16 years. There was a vacancy which was advertised by the county for the position of employee relations manager, a position which Mr. Zimpfer decided to apply for. After considering all the applications, the county chose a candidate, Mr. Brad Merriman, age 33, to fill this position. Mr. Zimpfer then decided to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EOOC) and hired an attorney, Ms. Lynn Szymoniak to pursue his case. Armed with a favorable report from an I/O psychologist, Dr. Marcy Josephs, Ms. Szymoniak is now attempting to reach a settlement with Palm Beach County’s legal representatives. Critical Issues ADEA Requirements and Prima Facie Evidence In order to establish a prima facie case against Palm Beach County, Mr. Zimpfer and his attorney would have to provide evidence that would meet certain requirements. The requirements are: 1) proving that Mr. Zimpfer is older than 39 and therefore protected under the ADEA; 2) Mr. Zimpfer is able to perform satisfactorily at some absolute or relative